Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive326

User:Rupaulisgreat reported by User:CCamp2013 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: RuPaul's Drag Race All Stars (season 2) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rupaulisgreat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [2]
2. [3]
3. [4]
4. [5]
5. [6]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [7]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [8]

Comments:
The user also replied on the talk page here. Chase (talk) 00:39, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Hopefully time enough to change their attitude. NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:52, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Starbucks6789 reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page

Bad Girls Club (season 16) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Starbucks6789 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 02:39, 12 September 2016 (UTC) to 02:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
   1. 02:39, 12 September 2016 (UTC) ""
   2. 02:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC) "/* Duration of cast */"
2. Consecutive edits made from 00:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC) to 00:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
   1. 00:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC) ""
   2. 00:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC) "/* Original Bad Girls */"
3. 23:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC) ""
4. Consecutive edits made from 20:04, 11 September 2016 (UTC) to 20:04, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
   1. 20:04, 11 September 2016 (UTC) "/* Original Bad Girls */"
   2. 20:04, 11 September 2016 (UTC) "/* Duration of cast */"
5. Consecutive edits made from 12:19, 11 September 2016 (UTC) to 12:20, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
   1. 12:19, 11 September 2016 (UTC) ""
   2. 12:20, 11 September 2016 (UTC) "/* Original Bad Girls */"
6. Consecutive edits made from 22:57, 10 September 2016 (UTC) to 22:58, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
   1. 22:57, 10 September 2016 (UTC) "/* Original Bad Girls */"
   2. 22:58, 10 September 2016 (UTC) "/* Duration of cast */"
7. Consecutive edits made from 19:51, 10 September 2016 (UTC) to 19:51, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
   1. 19:51, 10 September 2016 (UTC) "/* Original Bad Girls */"
   2. 19:51, 10 September 2016 (UTC) "/* Duration of cast */"
8. Consecutive edits made from 19:43, 10 September 2016 (UTC) to 19:45, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
   1. 19:43, 10 September 2016 (UTC) "/* Original Bad Girls */"
   2. 19:44, 10 September 2016 (UTC) "/* Duration of cast */"
   3. 19:45, 10 September 2016 (UTC) "/* Duration of cast */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:08, 12 September 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Bad Girls Club (season 16). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 23:52, 11 September 2016 (UTC) "/* Page needs to have full names. */"
2. 00:03, 12 September 2016 (UTC) "/* Page needs to have full names. */"
3. 01:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC) "/* Page needs to have full names. */"

Comments:

Edit warring over spelling of Adryan/Ad'Ryan. User was warned and claimed they'd continue to edit war anyway ([9]).

The Bad Girls Club pages are plagued with tendentious editors and socks (which is why all seasons but 16 are indefinitely semi protected). EvergreenFir (talk) 05:38, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours EvergreenFir, you made me watch a trailer for this show. That's almost block-worthy. NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Kintetsubuffalo reported by User:GWFrog (Result: Malformed report)

Page

• Racine Scouts Drum and Bugle Corps (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

• Kintetsubuffalo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

On 28 July I posted an edit to the Racine Scouts Drum and Bugle Corps article that, after 89 years of continuous activity,the corps had not taken the field in 2016. No ref cite was added because, at that time, nothing had been published about this. My intent was to add a cite as soon as one was available.

On 30 July [[[User:Kintetsubuffalo]] reverted my edit with only the comment, "last clean edit"... I did not notice the edit on my Watchlist until 19 August, when I reverted his edit with the comment "reverted to my prior"...

About 2 hours later, User:Kintetsubuffalo reverted my edit with the comment, "not without citation", finally giving a rationale for his reversions... He then proceeded to make a series of improper edits on the page (capitalizing all words in section headings) so that his reversion was buried under several other edits.

On that same day, in the August 19, 2016 issue of Drum Corps World, the first published mention was made of the Racine Scouts' inactivity, with the magazine's publisher lamenting the corps' demise... I went to the Wiki-page to add the ref cite and found User:Kintetsubuffalo's multiple edits. As soon as I began reverting the improper edits with the comment "reverted intermediate edit to get to earlier edit", ppUser:Kintetsubuffalo]] did another revert, commenting "as I said, find a cite. until then, I am watching this". Since my intent was to add said cite, I continued, leaving an edit stating that, "In the Summer of 2016, after eighty-nine years of continuous activity, the Racine Scouts quietly went inactive." To this I added the reference along with the edit comment "added ref cite".

On 8 September User:Racine1927 edited my statement to read, "In 2016. the Racine Scouts decided to not to participate in DCI Summer Music Games." User:Racine1927 left my ref cite in place and made the edit comment "We have not folded. Correcting". To verify that the corps has not folded, I visited the corps' website and saw that there has been recent activity after it had sat idle for the previous year. In order to bring the text and the ref cite more-or-less into agreement, I reworded the text to "In 2016.after eighty-nine years of continuous activity, the Racine Scouts did not take the field." This made no unsupported claims while giving the known facts.

On 11 September, User:Kintetsubuffalo once again reverted my edit to User:Racine1927's edit, while still leaving my ref cite. His edit comment was " I _knew_ you were full of it!"

I then left the edit comment, "reverted to neutral statement as per ref cite" and posted the following on User talk:Kintetsubuffalo: Would you care to explain how my making a neutral-toned factual edit with a reference citation makes me "...full of it..."? I stated that "...after eighty-nine years of continuous activity, the Racine Scouts did not take the field." This is the facts as they are known. The corps has made no comment as to why it did not field. So little has been said about the corps not fielding that Steve Vickers, the editor and publisher of Drum Corps World lamented the corps' passing in an editorial. That editorial is the reference that I cited to back up my statement. You left my cite in place for your claim that "...the Racine Scouts decided to not to participate in DCI Summer Music Games...". a claim not supported by the reference, which states simply that "...We lost two corps -- the Racine Scouts and the Blue Saints..." Like the Scouts, the Blue Saints made no comment about their not fielding, but it has since stated that the corps has been unable to find a new director, so the organization is using the time to solidify their finances. Whatever the case is for the Racine Scouts is, however, the group has made no statement about its inactivity, and, until very recently, the corps' webpage had not been updated in the last year--- it now states that information on the 2017 Production and 2017 Staff are "Coming Soon"... The Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and all statements in it should be neutral in tone, factual, and supported by evidence that can be cited as proof. My edit was neutral, factual, and supported, so how dies that make me "...full of it..."? While you consider that, also please consider how your calling me "...full of it..." jibes with your understanding of the Scout Law... GWFrog (talk) 19:38, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Apparently, User:Kintetsubuffalo has no desire to be reasonable, but wants to do things as he wants to do them. He again reverted my edit, with the comment "the straight text from the actual member is better than your prosaic bullshit, and you owe him an apology for undoing his factual change to your conjecture". Additionally, he went on a rent on Talk:Racine Scouts Drum and Bugle Corps accusing me of wanting an edit war.

Before I then left the edit comment, "reverted to neutral statement as per ref cite" and posted the following on both User talk:Kintetsubuffalo and Talk:Racine Scouts Drum and Bugle Corps: I am going to, one more time, revert your edit to the factually supported text. If you revert it again, I will file a Wikipedia:Dispute resolution request concerning your actively edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. I tried to be nice, politely explaining to you in detail how my edit was the correct one, but you started swearing in the edit summary and ranting on Talk:Racine Scouts Drum and Bugle Corps. I am not out to engage in an edit war; I am only trying to edit in the proper manner. If you cannot do the same, we will take this situation to the administrators. GWFrog (talk) 04:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Kintetsubuffalo'sedit comment on his latest reversion was "previous editor's change was factual and to the point without the purple prose, and you owe him an apology. If you want to bring in an admin, let's do that".

So the ball is now in your court... Thank you for your attention... GWFrog (talk) 08:07, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

References

• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Katie^talk 13:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Mlang.Finn reported by User:Elektrik Fanne (Result: No violation)

Active shutter 3D system: Active shutter 3D system (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Mlang.Finn: Mlang.Finn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [10]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [11]
2. [12]
3. [13]
4. [14]
5. [15]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [16]& [17]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Active shutter 3D system#Disadvantages of active shutter systems

Comments:

Mlang.Finn has not actually breached the three revert rule, but there is persistent slow motion revertion of disruptive editing. In the section of the article for 'advantages', Mlang.Finn persistently inserts a feature of some cheap TV sets as though it is disadvantage of the article subject (which, of course, it isn't). Despite several requests, he continues to refuse to provide a reference that the feature of the cheap televisions is somehow a disadvantage of the active shutter 3D system, even though he keeps disruptively inserting into the advantages section. He also has the cheek to accuse me of disruptive editing despite the fact that I am not inserting anything let alone anything unreferenced (Edit Summary:reverted disruptive editing). --Elektrik Fanne 12:18, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

• No violation. This is a content dispute that so far has not mushroomed into an edit war by both editors.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:38, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

User:86.174.240.73 reported by User:KGirlTrucker81 (Result: Semi)

Page

The Shawshank Redemption (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

86.174.240.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 22:16, 10 September 2016 (UTC) to 22:16, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
   1. 22:16, 10 September 2016 (UTC) ""
   2. 22:16, 10 September 2016 (UTC) ""
2. 21:40, 10 September 2016 (UTC) ""
3. Consecutive edits made from 16:49, 10 September 2016 (UTC) to 16:50, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
   1. 16:49, 10 September 2016 (UTC) ""
   2. 16:50, 10 September 2016 (UTC) ""
4. 16:21, 10 September 2016 (UTC) "I have attempted to discuss this MANY times but nobody has bothered to enter the conversation. Don't bother saying "go to the talk page" if nobody answers."
5. 15:44, 10 September 2016 (UTC) "Was told to take it to the talk section, no one responded. So I'm going to keep editing this. It's correct, deal with it."
6. 19:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC) ""
7. 19:32, 9 September 2016 (UTC) "I'm ending the 1990s/all time debate by removing the sentence. It ends now."
8. 15:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This IP tries to reslove but no response has given, and contiuesly removing "best film of 1990's". KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I'm been doing} 22:35, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Result: Semiprotected six months. See the protection log for the past problems. EdJohnston (talk) 17:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Muboshgu reported by SaintAviator (Result: Declined)

Page: Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 User being reported: Muboshgu

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [18]
2. [19]
3. [20]

Comments:
1RR violation SaintAviator lets talk 07:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Tendentious report. This was a BLP revert, dealing with an editor who just tried to add the same disputed, fringe-y content three times to an article under community sanctions. The reporting editor, after making this report, just added it again.[21] Please remove this content or give clearance to remove it again, as this represents process gaming and is a BLP concern. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 07:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

NeilN he appears to be ignoring your warning around which he replied to around 15.00 hrs then after that in the same 24 hr period, as before, broke 1RR twice. Its causing more edit wars [22] [23] SaintAviator lets talk 23:29, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Muboshgu has voluntarily agreed to refrain from editing the article for the next three days. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:41, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• Declined There were two editors who broke WP:1RR. I warned the other one to be careful. Muboshgu gets the same warning, tempered by the fact the addition contained some wording that was very questionable from a BLP standpoint. NeilN ^{talk to me} 08:38, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Mirazaliullah reported by User:842U (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page: Orb (optics) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mirazaliullah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [24]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [25]
2. [26]
3. [27]
4. [28]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [29]

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours For edit warring and disruptive editing. NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

User:202.159.166.64 reported by User:Jim1138 (Result: Semi)

Page: Budd Hopkins (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 202.159.166.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. 5

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [30]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [31]

(user's talk page) [32]

Comments:
This is a wp:BLP and a wp:fringe topic. Jim1138 (talk) 02:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected two months. The IP violated 3RR and seems to be here on Wikipedia to impart great truth. Please use the talk page to get consensus for your proposed changes and try to avoid the use of unreliable sources. EdJohnston (talk) 15:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Krimuk90 reported by User:John (Result: Warned)

Page: Catherine Zeta-Jones (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Krimuk90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [33]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [34]
2. [35]
3. [36]
4. [37]
5. [38]
6. [39]
7. [40]
8. [41]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [42]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [43]

Comments:
Highly unfortunate that this article seems to have made it through FAR with poorly-sourced material relating to a BLP. User Krimuk90 has tenaciously restored the offending material against the BLP policy and against two editors who have tried to discuss with him; he's at 8rr just now, and shows no sign of understanding what he is doing wrong. John (talk) 10:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, yes. I'm an awful person. Block me, delist the article from FA, and have a good night's sleep. Krimuk|90 (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Warned. This is the editor who nominated the article for FA, but he seems to have lost his composure for the moment due to a dispute about sources. See his talk page and my message. Any renewal of this revert war may lead to a block. EdJohnston (talk) 22:34, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Timothyjosephwood reported by User:SaintAviator (Result: No violation)

Page: Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 User being reported: User:Timothyjosephwood

1. [44]
2. [45]

Comments:
1RR violation, getting out of hand SaintAviator lets talk 23:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

The diffs provided show consecutive edits which, according to WP:3RR, count as a single revert. clpo13_(talk) 23:23, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• No violation See your talk page NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:24, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Got it, Good faith learning curve SaintAviator lets talk 23:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

User:85.96.56.233 reported by User:Lalichii (Result: Blocked)

Page: Self-coup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 85.96.56.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [46]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [47]
2. [48]
3. [49]
4. [50]
5. [51]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [52]

Comments:
By now it is plain disruptive editing. The IP does not engage in meaningful discussion but keeps removing sourced content, his edits claim I am a "Gulenist manipulator" but the source he uses to back up his claims specifically states "The case against Gulen is not shut and dried". He says my sources are false and has now editted the entry to agree with him however even if his claim was true it would not belong in the article he is stating it in (he claims the turkish coup is not a self coup and was instead a just a failed coup by Fethullah Gülen however that would mean it was unsuitable for the list and should have been removed instead of being ammended to state this). Lalichii (talk) 20:41, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Fuortu reported by User:1.39.98.34 (Result: Different IP blocked)

Page: Dead Man's Cards (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fuortu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [53]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [54]
2. [55]
3. [56]
4. [57]
5. [58]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [59]

Comments:

• making multiple unexplained edits. (See [60])
• making unconstructive edits by reverting tidy up edits. (See [61])
• is breaching 3RR. (See [62])

Please could an admin intervene. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.39.98.34 (talk) 16:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• And I suppose that you are the IP that was blocked for disruptive editing by @Widr:? Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 16:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

User:1.39.98.34 reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: )

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:56, 13 September 2016 (UTC) "same message as previous"
2. 15:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC) "please stop this. Your edits and unexplained and unconstructive. Note you are close to breaching 3RR"
3. 15:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC) "roll back of unexplained and unconstructive edit"
4. 15:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC) "rollback of unexplained edit"
5. 15:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC) "De-red link & rmv. dead link"

• Note to closing administrator Related to the above.

IP, you are the disruptive element at that article- all your edits were either unnecessary delinking, messing up the spelling, and changing the content. Your attempt to incriminate Fuortu compounds your ofence as that is a severe personal attack. _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• @DatGuy: preferred it as it was- the IP's report is both malformed and unjustified. This is *heh* 'the ony report in town' _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Feel free to revert it back to the good ol' days. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 16:41, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• Result: 117.247.154.136 (talk · contribs) was the actual IP reverting against User:Fuortu. That IP has now been blocked 31 hours by User:Widr. It is hard to figure out the motivation for the IP to repeatedly delink the names used in the article. This activity had better not continue unless some explanation is given. It looks to be disruptive editing. EdJohnston (talk) 00:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Chriscross619 reported by User:Dohvahkiin (Result: Warned user(s))

Page: The Usos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Chriscross619 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [63]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [64]
2. [65]
3. [66]
4. [67]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [68]

Comments:
User keeps providing false information, first under an IP address, then under an actual username. I've been trying to keep the page from being misinformitive, but the user keeps reverting any edit I make, to the one he originally made which provides false informationDohvahkiin (talk) 05:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• Warned by Dennis Brown, and then again by NeilN; no disruption since that last warning. I will saw, though, that User:Chriscross619 is skating on very thin ice here, and any further disruption might be met with an immediate block. Vanamonde (talk) 10:04, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

User:65.158.118.254 reported by User:Feinoha (Result: Blocked 6 months)

Page

Kent Hovind (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

65.158.118.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 739277882 by Clpo13 (talk) The verses were up LONG before you showed up. Stop lying to the people."
2. 19:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 739249176 by NeilN (talk) So do it, hypocrite."
3. 16:24, 13 September 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 739247102 by NeilN (talk) They can read later on that that's what he is. Otherwise you better claim that he's a drivers license holder too. Not everyone subscribes to your liberal bias."
4. 16:07, 13 September 2016 (UTC) "Please talk about the fact that he's "known as a tax protester" on the article's talk page. The fact that Kent Hovind was indicted on various charges has already been laid out and that is not how most people come to know him, but rather, later on."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Warning given here. Also is using personal attacks on their user talk page. Feinoha ^Talk 19:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Look's like they've been blocked already so I guess we can close this report as resolved. Feinoha ^Talk 20:09, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 6 months Per (my) ANI report. NeilN ^{talk to me} 10:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

User:129.62.125.9 reported by User:The Banner (Result: Semi)

Page: Baylor University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 129.62.125.9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [69]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [70]
2. [71]
3. [72]
4. [73]
5. [74]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [75], [76]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [77]

Comments:
By now it is plain disruptive editing. The IP does not engage in meaningful discussion but keeps removing sourced content. See Talk:Baylor University#Why a ranking of 701+ is not a useful ranking. IP claims a prior discussion came to consensus, but such a discussion is nowhere to be found. He (I assume) also claims that ten of thousands of universities have the 701+ ranking. But it is already the given sources that proves that it is a false claim. This won't stop unless the article is protected (or the IP blocked).

Please note that is is possible that a range must be blocked, as earlier there was another IP removing the sourced info: 129.62.65.1. The Banner talk 17:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected two months. Use the talk page to get agreement on this point. EdJohnston (talk) 12:52, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Geves08 reported by User:Frankam12 (Result: Protected)

Page: John Faso (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Geves08 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [78]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [79]
2. [80]
3. [81]
4. [82]
5. [83]
6. [84]
7. [85]
8. [86]
9. [87]
10. [88]
11. [89]
12. [90]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [91]

Comments:

Additionally, it appears History518 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 72.0.130.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) may be linked to User:Geves08. User:History518 appears to be a single-purpose, unconfirmed account with the purpose of reverting edits and commenting on the talk page, in an effort to avoid addressing the COI allegations on the talk page by User:SPECIFICO. User:72.0.130.82 has the IP 72.0.130.82 registered to a law firm in upstate NY, where the subject of the entry's family member is employed: http://www.woh.com/attorneys/nicolas-j-faso/ which is an obvious COI issue. They are also engaged in the recent edit warring.

Reverts by History518 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

1. [92]
2. [93]
3. [94]

Reverts by 72.0.130.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

1. [95]
2. [96]
3. [97]

Also suspicious that the IP user recently scrubbed the talk page of John Faso (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) of User:History518's edit, and then re-edited it back in:

1. [98]

I've made quite a few reverts on that page in good faith to enforce WP:BLP, and I encouraged the new users to discuss on the talk page and referred them to relevant Wikipedia policies. User:Geves08 appears to have already been warned in August by User:SPECIFICO about the 3RR on his/her talk page: [99] Frankam12 (talk) 19:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Page protected – 5 days. Please use the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 13:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Anonymous427 reported by User:MelbourneStar (Result: Warned user(s))

Page

Australian federal election, 2016 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Anonymous427 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 10:22, 13 September 2016 (UTC) ""
2. 09:41, 13 September 2016 (UTC) ""
3. 08:54, 13 September 2016 (UTC) ""
4. 08:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC) ""
5. 08:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 08:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Australian federal election, 2016. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 09:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC) "Please discuss, stop edit warring"

Comments:

Anonymous427 continues to add a duplicate description in the infobox of Australian federal election, 2016, despite two editors so far disputing Anonymous' edits. I had asked the editor twice to discuss their edit. They continue, instead, to edit war and offer no explanations for their edits whatsoever. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 10:27, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why this was not acted upon yesterday; there was certainly a 3RR violation here. Nonetheless, a block at this time would be punitive. Warned Vanamonde (talk) 13:35, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Mark Raj Rics reported by User:RunnyAmiga (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

Page: Madison Renee Gabriel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mark Raj Rics (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [100]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [101]
2. [102]
3. [103]
4. [104]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [105]

No link to any discussion because no, I'm not going to try to find compromise via some back-and-forth when several users think an AFD note has to stay and another, the page's creator, keeps removing it. This unhelpful, condescending language ("If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too") ought to go.

Comments:

RunnyAmiga ※ talk 17:59, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Widr (talk) 18:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Gonzales John reported by User:FyzixFighter (Result: Blocked)

Page

Jesus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Gonzales John (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC) "again consensus first, then remove. Please stop violating policies and trying to make it sound like I am edit warring, when in reality I am just reverting your policy-defying removal."
2. 21:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC) "Nothing should be done to stuff before consensus has been reached. StAnselm, unfortunately defied this because of his bias, and by saying that it should be removed, when in fact the rules state that it should be left untouched till consensus."
3. 13:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC) "Please refute my explanations and arguments, instead of spouting rehashed tendentious crap."
4. 07:05, 14 September 2016 (UTC) "You shouldn't remove sentences when the "statement" you argue against is not the sentence's actual statement."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User recently (~4 days) returned from a 24 hr block for edit warring over the same material on the same article. It appears the user misunderstands WP:CONSENSUS and WP:ONUS. FyzixFighter (talk) 00:58, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:13, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Syafiqshahalam reported by User:Aero777 (Result: Blocked)

Page: Proton Persona (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Proton Persona (CM) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Proton Persona (BH) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Syafiqshahalam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:
[106]
[107]
[108]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [109]
2. [110]
3. [111]

1. [112]
2. [113]
3. [114]

1. [115]
2. [116]
3. [117]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [118]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [119]

Comments:
This user appears to be editing in good faith. However, I can no longer give him the benefit of doubt, because even after I've written an extensive explanation on his talk page, he has failed to reply and simply reverted the pages again. Worse still, he even blanked my own user page. It is clear now that the user has no intentions of resolving the situation in the appropriate manner.

*Result: User talk:Syafiqshahalam is warned they may be blocked if they make any more reverts about the Proton cars without first getting a consensus in their favor on a talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 23:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Noted, with thanks. I will restore the three pages to their original state. Should the user reverted again without any explanation(s), I will refile the complaint accordingly. Best regards, Aero777 (talk) 01:21, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Update - Once again, the user has reverted all three pages without any explanations. He has not responded to the warning on his talk page either. Aero777 (talk) 02:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Blocked – 3 days due to renewed edit warring after the original closure. EdJohnston (talk) 02:50, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

User:2601:647:4701:4D10:842B:DEF:5534:7FF9 reported by User:MelbourneStar (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

Page

Scratchpad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2601:647:4701:4D10:842B:DEF:5534:7FF9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 09:48, 15 September 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 739546879 by 77.60.75.237 (talk) - same IP address like on 129.162.108.109 from Pete the Cat"
2. 09:44, 15 September 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 739546609 by MelbourneStar (talk) - later on, rmv two articles like on talk:snake rattle 'n' roll and talk:list of top cat characters"
3. 09:42, 15 September 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 739546472 by MelbourneStar (talk)"
4. 09:39, 15 September 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 739545952 by MelbourneStar (talk)"
5. 09:35, 15 September 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 739545274 by Dewritech (talk) - restoring vhs and did openings"
6. 09:28, 15 September 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 737003933 by Geraldo Perez (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 09:43, 15 September 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 09:45, 15 September 2016 (UTC) "/* Disambiguation */ new section"

Comments:

IP continues a long-line of disruptive editing on this disambiguation page; continues to add irrelevant content to said page -- despite warnings, 3RR warning - and half a dozen other editors disputing these edits. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 09:49, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Widr (talk) 09:54, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

User:2601:240:C901:FD00:5459:89C:81CA:CFE4 reported by User:CCamp2013 (Result: Withdrawn)

Page

America's Got Talent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2601:240:C901:FD00:5459:89C:81CA:CFE4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:27, 15 September 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 739611291 by CCamp2013 (talk) There was no consensus decision present on the Talk page before it was added the first time. YOU talk about it before removing it again!"
2. 19:24, 15 September 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 739609750 by CCamp2013 (talk)Justification added to Talk page. Deleting the table DELETES INFORMATION"
3. 19:09, 15 September 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 738401653 by CCamp2013 (talk) This provides information nowhere else in the article; the judges are repeated in THEIR golden buzzer table; why not Guest Judges?"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:27, 15 September 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on America's Got Talent. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 19:29, 15 September 2016 (UTC) "/* Duplicate guest judges table */ reply"

Comments:

• NAC Comment - This should be closed as they're both discussing it, The IP has been adding content and CC's been reverting however I've reverted and asked both to discuss[120] which they are so at this present time this report is premature and it's only going to rile the IP up, The IP (as well as CC) have been given the options of either RFC or 30) so as I said at the moment whilst they're discussing this there's no need for blocks (unless you or the IP plays silly buggers which I'm hoping you's won't), Ofcourse if the IP does revert I would personally just go to RFPP however everyone's discussing and hopefully everyone will come to some sort of agreement without any admin intervention, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 19:46, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I filed this before seeing Davey2010's reply and the IP only starting discussing after I filed this. Chase (talk) 19:54, 15 September 2016 (UTC) I am willing to withdraw pending the IPs behavior. Chase (talk) 19:55, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

• CCamp2013 - I thought you and CC were completely different editors ... turns out you're the same person! , Anyway I had wondered if you never saw the reply, Ofcourse if the IP does revert then I'd happily support blocks & the report but for now it's perhaps best to let the discussions continue :), Cheers, –Davey2010^Talk 20:03, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Lysimachi reported by User:Lemongirl942 (Result: Already blocked)

Page

Han Chinese (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Lysimachi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:17, 15 September 2016 (UTC) "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable."
2. 14:40, 15 September 2016 (UTC) ""
3. 21:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC) "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:03, 15 September 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Han Chinese. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 15:08, 15 September 2016 (UTC) "/* Recent mass addition of tags */ reply"

Comments:

User is constantly POV pushing and editing against consensus. Has been previously warned but is continuing the behaviour. Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:12, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

With repeated reverts ([121], [122], [123], [124]) User Lemongirl942 consistently added back unsourced materials (which have been tagged by citation needed for over a month), added unsourced information ("Some sources refer to Han Chinese as "Chinese" or group them with other Chinese peoples."), and remove citation needed tags for questionable sources. For example, as shown in the discussion on the article talk page, Lemongirl942 did not propose any source for "655,377" Han Chinese in Japan, but Lemongirl942 kept removing the citation needed tag for that number. Lysimachi (talk) 16:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Just to let you know that others have reverted Lysimachi's edits as well [125], [126]. Lysimachi has a different understanding of policies than others. The problem here is not the content but the behaviour: a refusal to understand what WP:CONSENSUS is and total lack of disregard for WP:BRD. This is disruptive and sucks up a lot of time. I'm honestly sick and tired of it. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:02, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Verifiability and No original research are the core policies of Wikipedia. What kind of behaviour is it to repeatedly remove citation needed tags, preventing others from improving the article, and to repeatedly add unsourced materials without any consensus, showing at the same time total disregard of WP:BRD (which by the way is not even a policy or guideline)? Lysimachi (talk) 19:07, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

You have been told to stop reverting. What you are doing is blatant WP:OWN behavior. What part of WP:CONSENSUS don't you understand? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:12, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Already blocked, so I guess this particular report can be closed. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:59, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours by User:Ymblanter. EdJohnston (talk) 12:52, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Bgc7676 reported by User:CCamp2013 (Result: Blocked)

Page

Big Brother 15 (U.S.) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Bgc7676 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC) "/* Voting history */"
2. Consecutive edits made from 19:35, 15 September 2016 (UTC) to 19:37, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
   1. 19:35, 15 September 2016 (UTC) "/* Voting history */"
   2. 19:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC) "/* Voting history */"
   3. 19:37, 15 September 2016 (UTC) "/* Voting history */"
3. 18:02, 15 September 2016 (UTC) "/* Voting history */"
4. 21:38, 14 September 2016 (UTC) "/* Voting history */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:03, 15 September 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Big Brother 15 (U.S.). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 18:52, 15 September 2016 (UTC) ""

Comments:

• Comment There is an ongoing adding and deleting of information by the same user on the article as well. Chase (talk) 20:02, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. This behavior looks similar to what was reported in an earlier 3RR report which was closed in August with a warning. User has 416 edits but hardly ever posts on talk pages. Many of these edits are puzzling, which is why talking would help. EdJohnston (talk) 17:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

User:77.58.11.198 reported by User:ZH8000 (Result: No action)

Page

Davos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

77.58.11.198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)やや

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:32, 16 September 2016 (UTC) "The edit was is not mine. *Harry Clarke, 1819-1931, Illustrator and stained artist, resident of Davoa 1929-1931, tuberculosis patient, president of Irish Society of Davos."
2. 01:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 739645846 by ZH8000 (talk) Please note- Harry Clarke was president of Irish Society of Davos - resided in Davos for approximately two years."
3. Consecutive edits made from 00:45, 16 September 2016 (UTC) to 00:48, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
   1. 00:45, 16 September 2016 (UTC) "*Harry Clarke, 1889–1931, Irish illustrator and stained glass, tuberculosis patient, lived in Davos intermittently 1929-1931."
   2. 00:48, 16 September 2016 (UTC) "Added entry about Harry Clarke."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Davos. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 01:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC) "/* Davos */ new section"
2. 01:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC) "/* Davos */"

Comments:

• Stale The dispute was over 12 hours ago, and when the IP tried to discuss the matter, you told him to get lost. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:18, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

User:[email protected] reported by User:Mjbmr (Result: Warned )

Page: March 27 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: [email protected] (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs:

1. Special:Diff/739650768
2. Special:Diff/739651447
3. Special:Diff/739723345
4. Special:Diff/739723903
5. Special:Diff/739726714
6. deprecated revision #739726714
7. Special:Diff/739727704

Comments:
He is referring to WP:DOY on Special:Permalink/739728003 that says "Not all people meet the more stringent notability requirements for Wiki-calendar articles" which the policy doesn't {{specify}} what are the requirement for that, I can refer to many articles that are already on March 27 and on my opinion they don't meet the more stringent notability requirements for Wiki-calendar articles, for example Gilberto Loyo or Oleksandr Sorokalet (volleyball) which they are on the the current version of the page, the first article is just one line article without any references, the second article not only doesn't have any references but also the person was not even born March 27. Also the user called me "nonsense" which is offensive while I'm trying to figure out what the requirements on his opinion, I actually don't mind if the articles I'm writing should not be on date pages but he is trying to force his opinion as a policy. Mjbmr (talk) 16:49, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't see that rms has gone over the 3RR threshold, though he's close to it, so I've dropped some advice on his talk page. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:15, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the 411. I didn't think I had violated 3RR which is why in my last reply to @Mjbmr I specifically pointed out that I was not going to edit war with him/her. I was hoping reality would sink in because I didn't want to have to open an ANI case either but since that is done, so be it. Quis separabit? 19:37, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I advised @Mjbmr that, in accordance with "Also, being the subject of a Wikipedia article is only a minimum requirement for inclusion in a Wiki-calendar article. Not all people meet the more stringent notability requirements for Wiki-calendar articles" (see [127]), it was my considered opinion that YouTuber Stuart Edge did not qualify. What do you think, @User:Ritchie333?? Much ado about nothing in any event, I guess. Quis separabit? 19:41, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Don't ask me, I'm just the janitor with the mop and bucket! I wasn't aware there were extra criteria to be on the days of the year articles (though I know there are for the On This Day section of the main page) but if there are, and Mjbmr is okay with that, then that's your answer I guess. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:49, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Well I don't think, and I certainly do not know, if @Mjbmr is "okay with that". Quis separabit? 22:18, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Renamed user r9L1Y46y7Z reported by User:[email protected] (Result: May 22 fully protected for two weeks)

Page: May 22 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Renamed user r9L1Y46y7Z (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [128]

Diff of ANI notification [129]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [130]
2. [131]
3. [132]
4. [133]
5. [134]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [135]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [136]

Comments:
For some reason Renamed user r9L1Y46y7Z is engaged in a campaign to remove name he feels are insufficiently notable. I understand this as I have been engaged in the same as part of the same thing following Deb's DOY project.

The difference is that I am not fixated on one date (out of 365), and more importantly, if someone disagrees with me about a particular entry, I am not going to dispute it. Renamed user r9L1Y46y7Z ignores my messages on his talk page and edit summaries indicating I am seeking consensus. He reverts my edits, and seems to think he can do whatever he wants. I am not seeking that he be blocked -- I just want him to acknowledge that when someone contests an edit, he needs to interact and try to seek consensus. Quis separabit? 04:06, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• @[email protected]: Page has been protected for two weeks. If that doesn't inspire a little consensus building then we can graduate to a discussion blocking and/or topic banning. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I have been engaged unfortunately in an edit-war with rms and yes, I have taken his comments into account and even tried to restore someone he mentioned. I don't think I can just do whatever I want, please stop putting words in my mouth, thanks. I did not ignore your messages. I responded to all his messages.

Renamed user r9L1Y46y7Z (talk) 05:26, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Violation of 3RR

I was — stupidly, and unknowingly — involved in an edit war with User:Factdefender. I was informed that I was edit warring when I went to the Help desk, and upon receiving a warning immediately stopped further edits to the page, and took advice posted there. However, User:Factdefender violated the 3RR well after our mutual warnings were posted, was given a chance to rescind their edit, and has not done so. Thanks. --FuzzyGopher (talk) 05:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I have attempted to inform user User:FuzzyGopher to abide by Wikipedia rules regarding valid sources and negative bias on multiple occasions. I have even made edits as per User:FuzzyGopher requests/opinions, but this person insists on reverting my edits even when they are valid and accommodating. --User:Factdefender (talk) 05:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Above user is in violation of the 3RR after warning, did not do a second-chance grace 4th revert after request, and has no engagement on any talk page. Sole contributions smack of violation of WP:YOURSELF, COI, and lack of understanding of WP:BLP/H and WP:PROUD. User has not "attempted to inform [me] to abide by Wikipedia rules regarding valid sources and negative bias on multiple occasions". Has never even touched a talk page. I immediately stopped after my own warning and followed all admin advice and went to articles' talk pages. I am being complacent here. --FuzzyGopher (talk) 06:16, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Murku reported by User:Realsteel007 (Result: )

Page: Plovdiv (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Murku (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [137]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14 Sept
2. 14 Sept
3. 14 Sept
4. 15 Sept
5. 16 Sept

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [138]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [139]

Comments: User:Murku is a newly registered used with a single purpose of vandalizing Plovdiv page. Editing the page is his only contribution to Wiki so far. I have left a warning message on his talk page and also started a discussion on Plovdiv's talk page but he did not reply to either of these. He obviously does not agree with the text in the history article for which I have used reliable reference. I showed him the exact page of the book on the web, but he refuses to stop editing the page and reverts to his version.--Realsteel007 (talk) 06:28, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

User:79.181.118.18 reported by User:DonCalo (Result: )

Page

Sidney Sonnino (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

79.181.118.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:53, 17 September 2016 (UTC) "'Jewish descent' means his ethnicity, not religion."
2. 01:17, 17 September 2016 (UTC) "'Jewish descent' means his ethnicity, not religion."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:05, 17 September 2016 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Sidney Sonnino. (TW)"
2. 00:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on Luigi Luzzatti. (TW)"
3. 00:10, 17 September 2016 (UTC) "Welcome to Wikipedia! (TW)"
4. 00:22, 17 September 2016 (UTC) "/* September 2016 */"
5. 01:29, 17 September 2016 (UTC) "/* September 2016 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. See Talk:Sidney Sonnino and Talk:Luigi Luzzatti

Comments:

User does not respond on his Talk Page. Seems to be a single purpose account similar to User 109.66.154.183. DonCalo (talk) 13:04, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Sailing82 reported by User:Sro23 (Result: Blocked 1 week)

Page

Li Yundi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Sailing82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 02:34, 18 September 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 739943902 by Sro23 (talk)"
2. 02:26, 18 September 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 739943071 by Sro23 (talk)"
3. 02:24, 18 September 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 739942856 by Sro23 (talk)"
4. Consecutive edits made from 02:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC) to 02:22, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
   1. 02:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 737056682 by The Banner (talk)"
   2. 02:22, 18 September 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 737057049 by Natuur12 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 02:25, 18 September 2016 (UTC) "/* Recent edit to Li Yundi */ SPA edit warring on Li Yundi"
2. 02:28, 18 September 2016 (UTC) "/* September 2016 */"
3. 02:31, 18 September 2016 (UTC) "/* September 2016 */ re now socking"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Note the user has been blocked in the past for edit warring, but I guess they haven't learned from it. Appears to be a single purpose account that not once has ever responded to warnings given. Also socking here:Special:Contributions/218.79.3.244. Sro23 (talk) 02:40, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Gonzales John reported by User:FyzixFighter (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)

Page

Jesus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Gonzales John (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC) "Other editors disagree with you and agree with me; JOIN THE DISCUSSION and GET CONSENSUS BEFORE removing."
2. 07:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC) "Please keep status quo, and consensus before removing. Why don't YOU actually join the discussion and actually gain consensus?"
3. 03:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC) "As Jonathan Tweet said, this is the mainstream scholarly view, and one that is as important as the scholarly view on Christ's existence."
4. 02:47, 18 September 2016 (UTC) "Per talk; scholars agree that the "Son of God" claim was merely added on later."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Less than six hours back from a block and already the user is back at it on the same article. FyzixFighter (talk) 07:29, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: The user has been twice blocked for the same content war. He added material that was challenged and reverted, and has constantly edit warred to add it back in. Among other things, this article is a FA and the paragraph in question has a comment that says "The following paragraph was created by consensus after considerable discussion by a variety of editors. Out of courtesy for this process, please discuss any proposed changes on the talk page before editing it." StAnselm (talk) 08:29, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks NeilN ^{talk to me} 10:24, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Comment I am sympathetic to the reported party's view in general, but I don't agree with their recent edits for complicated, content-based reasons, and don't condone their general editing style. In my view, no one who has edited the article in the last 24 hours is without blame. This is a complicated content dispute, and several users on both sides have been engaged in an edit war. The best solution would be not to re-block the reported party (in effect condoning the not-entirely-unquestionable actions of their opponents) but to revert to the last stable version and fully protect the page until talk page discussion has taken place. (There already is a back-and-forth going on, but there too no one is without guilt in my view.) Both sides in this dispute are working to make the lead worse, in my opinion, as both versions of the lead are sourced independently of the article body rather than summarizing it (virtually none of the 46 sources cited in the lead are cited anywhere else in the article). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• Three other editors have reverted Gonzales John's edits with no one else except Gonzales John reverting them back in. This is Gonzales John's third bout of edit warring in the last ten days. Also, your opening comment here shows you are not completely neutral in this dispute. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:31, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, but that's only if one counts the most recent edit war, but what about the last one and the one before that? You say that this is Gonzales's third edit-warring bout in the last ten days -- were the users reverting him then not the same ones as now? In the last three weeks Isambard Kingdom has edit-warred on the page at least three times, StAnselm four times, Jonathan Tweet five times, Tom Harrison three times, Antique Rose once, FyzixFighter once...　Blocking only one editor in an ongoing edit-war involving multiple users with multiple points of view (with not everyone on the blocked user's "side" being guilty of edit-warring and not everyone on the reporting user's "side" being innocent) only serves to escalate the situation. And who said I was "completely neutral" in "this dispute"? It would depend on which dispute you are talking about -- there are about ten different issues being discussed on the talk page at the moment, and I don't fully agree with anyone on any of them, it seems. The diff you linked is me trying, preemptively, to cool things down by specifically telling the user whose theological views appear to line up most closely with mine to cool down and work things out on the talk page -- it does not specifically address any of the disputes on the page itself. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:57, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hijiri 88, past edit wars show the same thing. Multiple editors reverting Gonzales John. If you can get him to agree to use the talk page and not touch the article for two weeks, I'll unblock. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:06, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

(Ditto) Yeah, but in several of those other disputes he was not the only one being reverted by StAnselm, Isambard, etc. Anyway, I'll see what I can do. Note that my theological views are actually pretty irrelevant to my position on the various content disputes, so Gonzales may not consider me to be as friendly to his position as I apparently seem, so he might not be any more amenable to advice from me as to that from any of his other opponents. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Modern Sciences reported by User:Seanwal111111 (Result: Protected)

Pages: Nelly (Egyptian entertainer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Feyrouz (actress) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Modern Sciences (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Nelly DIFF, Feyrouz DIFF

Editor Modern Sciences and me Seanwal111111 have reverted each other 19 times, each of us, during the last 10 days, in a simple repeated way, as can be seen at Nelly HISTORY and Feyrouz HISTORY.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: NONE; justification done by pointing to the Wikipedia guidelines at MOS:LEADALT, MOS:FORLANG and MOS:BIO.

Comments:
Nelly (Egyptian entertainer) is a living person. Her notability is for musical comedies in the Arabic language. She has lived in Egypt all her life. The native language of both of her parents is Arabic. The religion of both of her parents is Armenian Christian. You wouldn't know from watching any of Nelly's musical comedies that she comes from an Armenian ethnic family background; and in other words her ethnicity and religion is not pertinent to what she is notable for. Editor Modern Sciences is an Armenian flagwaver whose only edit to the Nelly (Egyptian entertainer) article is to insert Armenian alphabet characters in the article's lead sentence, and delete the Arabic characters. Here is the lead sentence with his version in red color and my version in green color:

Nelly Artin Kalfayan (Armenian: Նելլի Արթին Կալաֆյան Arabic: نيللي آرتين كالفيان , born 3 January 1949 in Cairo, Egypt), better known by the mononym Nelly (نيللي), is an Egyptian actress, singer, comedian, dancer, television personality, and all-around entertainer. (DIFF here)

The Wikipedia guidelines at MOS:OPENPARAGRAPH say about the lead or opening paragraph of a biography: "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability."

The Wikipedia guidelines at MOS:FORLANG say: "If the subject of the article is closely associated with a non-English language, a single foreign language equivalent name can be included in the lead sentence." The Wikipedia guidelines at MOS:LEADALT says (emphasis in original): "Relevant foreign-language names, such as in an article on a person who does not themselves write their name in English, are encouraged."

Nelly's name written in the Armenian alphabet is not relevant, and not compliant with the above guidelines. Nelly's name written in Arabic in relevant, and compliant.

Nelly has a notable sister, Feyrouz (actress), whose notability is for musical comedies in the Arabic language, like her sister. Myself and the editor Modern Sciences have revert each other 19 times in the last 10 days on these two articles in the same simple repeated way.

I'm primarily interested in the Nelly and Feyrouz articles, but this editor Modern Sciences has made unwarranted insertions of the Armenian alphabet into the lead sentence of numerous other biographies of persons who are not Armenians, persons who are merely of Armenian ancestry. Here for example is one that he did today, 18 Sep 2016: Zareh Moskofian: DIFF. From my point of view, what we have here is not just edit warring on Nelly and Feyrouz, but also inappropriate ethnic flagwaving in the lead sentence on some non-small number of biographies of persons of Armenian ancestry. Seanwal111111 (talk) 20:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

1. You said "I'm primarily interested in the Nelly and Feyrouz articles" but it not it important your interesting for making decision by Administartors here wikipedia rules are rulings
2. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring (Under Edit warring rule) must 4 times in 24 hours undo happened by other side that you can report here (you report wrong place)
3. First time you undo my edition this
4. Both or this sister are armenian descent and their name is Armenian too (their name is not Arabic)
5. I leave this message for this user but he is no reponse to answer to my message
6. Mehmet Oz, Mesut Özil, Nikolai Gogol, Karim Boudiaf, thousandas and thousands example

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Both pages protected at THEWRONGVERSION for a month. Discuss it on the articles' talk page(s). There are [sanctions] in place for articles relating to Armenia, so don't return to edit warring. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:50, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

User:TechnoTalk reported by User:Lemongirl942 (Result: Blocked)

Page

Dan Price (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

TechnoTalk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 740199185 by Lemongirl942 (talk)pls see discussion on talk page"
2. 17:21, 19 September 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 740190598 by Lemongirl942 (talk)stop edit warring until others can comment."
3. 15:44, 19 September 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 740179741 by Lemongirl942 (talk) Please stop edit warring. State your concerns on the talk page."
4. 14:50, 19 September 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 739969906 by Grayfell (talk) Subject is notable. When calling SPAM, it's your responsibility to highlight the spam concerns issues on the talk page instead of edit warring."
5. 06:47, 18 September 2016 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Dan Price. (TW)"
2. 17:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Ownership of articles on Dan Price. (TW)"
3. 17:36, 19 September 2016 (UTC) "/* September 2016 */ add"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 16:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC) "/* Deletion is too extreme a solution to block coi editing */ reply"
2. 17:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC) "/* Deletion is too extreme a solution to block coi editing */ comment"

Comments:

Constant edit warring and WP:OWN behaviour on an article which had a track record of extensive COI editing and disruption. The editor has been warned not to revert the redirect without consensus but is still persisting against multiple editors. Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:29, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Pinging Grayfell who was involved as well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:CANVASSING isn't the way to go. Stay with the rfc and see how consensus goes. I think you'll be surprised when everyone who comes to this knows the subject, and will wonder why you are against the article so much.TechnoTalk (talk) 18:46, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

What WP:CANVASSING are you talking about? If you have evidence show here please. You were edit warring despite being warned and we are discussing your conduct. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:56, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. I have also protected Dan Price as a redirect to Gravity Payments until a consensus is reached on whether a separate article on Dan Price ought to exist. A war has been going on since June, and it seems possible that some editors may have a WP:COI. If so they should not be editing this article at all. EdJohnston (talk) 19:17, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Tehsojiro and User:Parrax reported by User:Ronaz (Result: Both warned)

Page

Kianoush Rostami (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users being reported

Tehsojiro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Parrax (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

I reverted to an ethnicity - free version and started the topic on the talk page.

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 09:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 740058438 by Parrax (talk)"
2. 13:25, 18 September 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 739992299 by Parrax (talk)"
3. there are many more diffs, the article's history is overflowing with edits going back and forth between

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 07:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Kianoush Rostami. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

see history for multiple edits inserting controversial material instead of reaching consensus on talk page. ronaz^Talk! 09:52, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Probably worth noting that two users have engaged in extensive edit-warring starting on the 21st of August and on-going. These are the reported user and Parrax. There has been no attempt at talk page discussion by either editor. Parrax has not reverted since receiving a warning of sorts. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:02, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Both warned. If either User:Techsojiro or User:Parrax changes anything about his Kurdish nationality in this article prior to talk page consensus they may be blocked. Blocks could have been issued but it appears that neither of them has edited the article since being alerted to this report, so it's possible they will stop. EdJohnston (talk) 19:44, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Dan56 reported by User:Binksternet (Result: )

Page: I Am... Sasha Fierce (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dan56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [140]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [141] – 19:29, September 18, 2016. Removing wording "mixed to positive", replacing with "generally mediocre". This was followed by complete removal.[142]
2. [143] – 09:05, September 19, 2016. Restored challenged wording "mixed to positive".

NO - This was an edit to the lead, not the article body where the content in question has been the point of contention. Stop misrepresenting my edits. Dan56 (talk) 19:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

1. [144] – 09:28, September 19, 2016. Restored challenged wording "mixed to positive".

The article body. I was reverting myself from a few days ago, restoring the version the contesting editor had preferred, so we could let the RfC resolve everything instead. Dan56 (talk) 19:20, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

1. [145] – 16:58, September 19, 2016. Restored challenged wording "mixed to positive".

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [146] – 14:41, September 17, 2016

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:I_Am..._Sasha_Fierce#RfC:_Should_the_statement_.22I_Am..._Sasha_Fierce_received_generally_mediocre_reviews_from_critics.22_be_removed.3F

Comments:

• Having lost his temper on the talk page, Dan56 is demonstrating a sense of ownership regarding this album article. Binksternet (talk) 18:07, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I object to this blatant misrepresentation of my actions. I have been the one opening discussions (when the burden wasn't on me, simply to avoid an edit war) and making all the effort at engaging the issues and point of views and trying to understand any objections and offering compromises. Binksternet is sour over the direction the RfC is heading and is mischaracterizing my efforts. The diffs he's listing make no sense with his argument; I reverted myself (the revision before all of this transpired in the past few days was the sentence not existing in any style or wording [147]) and offered two different compromises, neither of which were good enough for Bink or Calvin999, whose inconsistent objections and preferences and reversions are baiting this entire dispute ([148], [149], [150]). Dan56 (talk) 18:40, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

• I contacted an admin, KrakatoaKatie, previously familiar with this incident when Calvin began reverting again and removing the RfC tag at the talk page (KrakatoaKatie's talk page) Dan56 (talk) 19:42, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I could have absolutely handled all this better, but both editors have made that far too difficult and Calvin999 in particular has been uncivil and antagonistic. Dan56 (talk) 19:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Run down

This is how everything has transpired so far: Dan56 (talk) 19:01, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

• At first, he argued the first source was inadequate while reverting me (08:00, 16 September 2016), then he argued the word "lukewarm" isn't adequate while reverting me (18:14, 16 September 2016)
• I open an RfC, and then Binksternet jumps in reverting me with no rationale behind his objection (05:06, 17 September 2016, 05:14, 17 September 2016)
• I offered a compromise to change the wording (23:12, 17 September 2016), and Calvin999 restores a revision from four years ago with an unsourced wording, explaining that the GA review accepted that version of the article "so there's nothing wrong with that" (11:21, 18 September 2016); I removed the sentence in its entirety, with neither of our preferred version, to wait and see what the RfC will decide (19:35, 18 September 2016)
• at the RfC, Calvin votes removing any sentence saying "lukewarm" or "mediocre" and replacing it with "mixed to positive" because that's what was in the GA-passed revision of the article four years ago and that "You don't need to source the overall reception, it's not a requirement." (08:43, 19 September 2016)
• Calvin revises the content in question, saying something different--"generally favorable reviews"--than what was in the GA-passed revision yet he claims it's from the GA-passed revision (08:51, 19 September 2016)
• I revert this, reminding him of his previous argument and to be consistent in what he's saying (09:28, 19 September 2016)
• Calvin999 removes the RfC tag and claims the discussion is done (09:31, 19 September 2016); he reverts me at the article, saying that the source he cited verifies "generally favorable" (16:10, 19 September 2016); I revert him, arguing that the source I offered verified "lukewarm" when I originally presented it, but it wasn't good enough for him (16:58, 19 September 2016)
• And now Bink has filed a report against me at ANI. Dan56 (talk) 19:01, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Both these editors have been dead set against me in the RfC and the only ones that have made edits undoing my original addition. They've been pitting me between a rock and a hard place. Both have been dismissive of any rationale or explanation I've had to offer and have made more of an effort discussing--at the RfC or elsewhere--my intentions and approach rather than the content at hand. I've explained several times how there are several sources verifying the album in question received average/lukewarm/mediocre reviews (Exclaim!, Daily Mail, News.com.au), and how the Metacritic source Calvin is now desiring to use is deceptive and not the best in this case ([151], [152]). And what does Calvin999 think of my thoughts? that it "means absolutely jack shite because your opinion is irrelevant just like every other editor on here when it comes down to sourcing and how to use text." I suppose that's been the thought process behind his behavior from the start. Dan56 (talk) 19:01, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Uh-huh keep on pasting things which are out of context to make others look bad. Point is what I said is true. Your opinion on Wikipedia doesn't matter. It's what is sourced which counts. And just because you don't think the term and tone of the section match up, doesn't give you exclusive rights to use ambiguous terminology to make them match up. Again you're going to have to try harder. Anyone will tell you that you have to stick by what is sourced and not make up your own stuff. You're showing no respect for Katie by pasting this running commentary and thread onto her talk. She definitely won't thank you vandalising her user talk when she can see it all here. But then you're not showing respect for anyone with regarding to editing pages so I doubt you care anyway.  — Calvin999 19:47, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I cited three sources. Nothing was ever going to be good enough for you. You simply lacked the interest to invest time and research how the album had been reviewed. Anyone with any familiarity with Metacritic would see a score of 62 falls in their aggregate range but is low and borderline; and anyone with an actual interest in improving the article would take the time to read the reviews and see the majority of them are average. Yet you're still insanely sticking to the superficiality of a tabulated entry from an aggregate website, instead of reliable third-party sources, articles written by actual journalists. Dan56 (talk) 19:50, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

You are completely missing the point of why you are assuming ownership, or you do see it but won't accept it because you're in too deep. Nothing in the article that I have added or changed is there, because you've reverted it each time. I even tried compromising by using the quote as sourced instead of the term as passed at GA but that still wasn't good enough. Why you are so hell bent with using 'lukewarm' and 'mediocre' (latter is unsourced) which are ambiguous terms I have no idea. They don't best describe the section and will likely get changed by a fan IP anyway. You disagreeing with the tone of the section and the term used to describe it is blatant ownership and you are directly ignoring what the sources are saying, so much so that you would rather include citation needed templates despite me adding a source with a quote. Unbelievable. What's worse is that you still don't get why you are being reported for ownership which has let to you edit warring and violating the 3RR. Everything you have said above is a million and one reasons why nothing is your fault and what everyone has done "against you." You're shooting yourself in the foot.  — Calvin999 19:24, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

You've been completely missing the point of why you have been assuming ownership. Dan56 (talk) 19:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I can't have. None of my edits are present and I'm not edit warring or violating the 3RR! It's not me who is reverted every addition made and making "compromises" on my own terms because it suits me: that is you. Try again.  — Calvin999 19:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I didn't violate 3RR nor engage in any more edit warring than you; those diffs point to areas of the article far and apart from each, and the last two involve me restoring the revision you've been claiming to prefer for most of this time, unless your preference has changed again... So what exactly do they show? That I was reverting myself?? Dan56 (talk) 19:43, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

You're the one who keeps reverting me, and I wasn't the last person who made a revert, it was you. I'm not engaging with your edit warring. You seem to think that's the way of getting your way but in fact it's not. You're using edits as a way getting your point across and then using the edit summary to say so. I haven't done that, I used the talk page instead.  — Calvin999 19:49, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

The diffs I listed above don't lie; you have done that. Dan56 (talk) 19:54, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm not going to handle this report as an admin because I deal with Dan56 and Calvin999 at FAC sometimes. But this is a content dispute and I encourage someone to lock the page until the RFC has run its course. Dan56 definitely is known to dig in his heels when he believes he's right, which is no excuse for edit warring on either side, but I don't think anything is going to be helped by anyone getting blocked. These are well-meaning editors who are passionate about album articles and tempers can boil over. --Laser brain (talk) 19:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Good idea. Lock the article down. Doesn't affect me because Dan56 won't let me edit the article anyway.  — Calvin999 20:04, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

"Won't let me edit the article"? Well, if that were the case, I'd have just restored the revision I believe is best, no? Dan56 (talk) 20:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

You did. Then you progressed to changing it when reverting to make your reversions less violating.  — Calvin999 20:24, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

You did. Then you progressed to changing it when reverting to make your reversions less violating. Dan56 (talk) 21:00, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Well no, you did reinstate what you want in their first and continued doing so. You're coming across more and more juvenile with every comment you post. How you can expect people to look at his and take you seriously is beyond me. Although, I am flattered that you felt the need to copy and paste my sentence because you couldn't come up with something worth reading yourself. They do say that imitation is the highest form of flattery...  — Calvin999 21:19, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment *bangs head against the wall* I'm about to block everybody just to get you guys to be quiet. That means I'm too close to this and I'm out. Someone else needs to deal with these two. Katie^talk 21:56, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

User:151.250.11.178 reported by User:Ktrimi991 (Result: Semi)

Page: Tetovo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 151.250.11.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [153]
2. [154]
3. [155]
4. [156]
5. [157]
6. [158]
7. [159]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [160]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [161] [162]

Comments:
I have tried to discuss this matter on the talk page but with no effect until now. I have warned user and also have presented them with WP:ARBMAC. Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected two months. The IP has made six Undos since 11 September and does not participate on the talk page. The warring is about ethnicity and thus falls under WP:ARBMAC. Please use the talk page to make your points. EdJohnston (talk) 20:29, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Additional Comment: I have raised the problem on the talk page. The IP user didn't collaborated. I will work with article to make some improvements. Thanks. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:19, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

User:27.147.205.217 / User:Soshuvo reported by User:Ravensfire (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page

Sania Sultana Liza (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

27.147.205.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Soshuvo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC) "/* Music career */"
2. 17:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC) "/* Music career */"
3. 17:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC) "/* Music career */"
4. 15:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:20, 19 September 2016 (UTC) "/* Stop removing the tag */ new section"
2. 17:28, 19 September 2016 (UTC) "/* Stop removing the tag */"
3. 17:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Sania Sultana Liza‎. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. User talk:Soshuvo#Excessive_references
2. User talk:Soshuvo#Warning
3. User talk:27.147.205.217#Stop removing the tag
4. Talk:Sania Sultana Liza#Excessive sources

Comments:

This is nearly certainly the IP of Soshuvo who is a WP:SPA focused on the subject of this article. They are a new user who has some idea of Wikimarkup, but little regard for editing in this environment. Zero effort to discuss, just revert to their preferred version again and again. I've requested semi-protection, but they've shown willingness to use both IP and their main account, so I think a block and semi protection may be needed here. And sadly, they just need review and reduce some of the excessive references to fix the tag. Ravensfire (talk) 17:41, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Both IP and account blocked. NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Pattypious22 reported by User:Adamfinmo (Result: 24 hours)

Page

Sam Harris (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Pattypious22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 02:32, 20 September 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 740273216 by FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) visit talk page.. reverted"
2. 02:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 740272487 by LM2000 (talk)"
3. 02:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 740246389 by FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk)"
4. 23:03, 19 September 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 740244589 by LM2000 (talk)"
5. 22:51, 19 September 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 740229950 by FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) this edit is removed to obscure widespread criticism"
6. 15:33, 19 September 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 736677024 by Iryna Harpy (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Warned by Iryna Harpy here.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Effort by NeilN to discuss the issue on the talk page here.

Comments:

Effort to discuss issue on talk page on my part as well.. concerted effort by editors to silence reasonable criticism of Harris — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pattypious22 (talk • contribs) 04:02, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Adam in MO Talk 03:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Parsley Man reported by User:XavierGreen (Result: 1 week)

Page: List of terrorist incidents in September 2016 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Parsley Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [163]
2. [164]
3. [165]
4. [166]
5. [167]
6. [168]
7. [169]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [170]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [171]

Comments:
I didn't really receive any warning that I was edit warring or close to violating the WP:3RR rule, so I thought I was in the clear to continue. Anyway, the edits in question were reversions of material that demonstrated users jumping to conclusions, classifying certain incidents as acts of terrorism even though the investigations literally just started and no top officials in the investigation, i.e. FBI, have verified that these were indeed terrorist attacks. In spite of constant warnings of such that I've been leaving in edit summaries, the edits just continued, and thus, so did I. Parsley Man (talk) 00:49, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I left a warning notice on your talk page, and you reverted again anyway. Looking back through the page's edit history, it looks like you have a pattern of edit warring and breaking 3rr on the particular page in question. Your block log shows you've been blocked before, and your talk page archives are littered with 3rr and edit warning notices [172]XavierGreen (talk) 00:53, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I didn't notice that warning until after the fact. Also, I don't see how my block history has anything to do with it. Your edits still need more support other than a couple of sources/politicians and several fringe sites. Parsley Man (talk) 00:55, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Your block history does enter into it. You are familiar with how the 3RR works. This isn't your first rodeo. You clearly know that reverting that many time is outragous. It is not up to the community to nag you not to break the rules. You know not to do it so whether you were warned or not is really irrellevant. You have been warned in the past and you know how this works.--Adam in MO Talk 04:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 week. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:14, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Njdeda Rlase reported by User:TouristerMan (Result: Warned)

Page

BOL Network (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Njdeda Rlase (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:56, 17 September 2016 (UTC) "User as not removed edits without discussion."
2. 14:07, 17 September 2016 (UTC) "reverted TouristerMan's disruptive edits. It is you who should discuss first before removing days' work of edits"
3. Consecutive edits made from 11:24, 17 September 2016 (UTC) to 11:26, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
   1. 11:24, 17 September 2016 (UTC) "It is an article about BOL and my edits were not related to scandal."
   2. 11:26, 17 September 2016 (UTC) "spacing"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 12:58, 17 September 2016 (UTC) "/* Recent Editing */"
2. 13:01, 17 September 2016 (UTC) "/* Recent Editing */"
3. 15:11, 17 September 2016 (UTC) "/* Recent Editing */"
4. 15:28, 17 September 2016 (UTC) "/* Recent Editing */"

Comments:

User is SPA. He wants to remove all mention of controversy from this article even though the "controversy" is the only thing that makes this failed network pass WP:GNG. He is attempting to create a bit of chaos so that the article is locked on his version and he can then stonewall the discussion on the TP. User was warned by an admin about WP:BRD and was told that edit warring will lead to blocks. User is stonewalling on the TP as I said above and instead of engaging in discussion he is simply reverting me claiming that "he was here first". It should also be noted that I have already added all the information that was not WP:UNDUE to the article in a concise manner, yes that is correct, everything that he added with sources is already added to the article, he is now just removing a controversy so this user cannot claim that his reverts are such that bring back information. TouristerMan (talk) 20:01, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Dear wikipedia administrators, I have not broken brightline three revert rule. I was shown this rule by wikipedia administrator Denis on my talk page messages and I promised him that i will not break this rule. I know I am on the brightline as well just like tourister man but I have not broken it and I will not revert more than now. Touristerman has made false report because in 24 hours I have only made three reverts not more. I was shown BRD rule, according to that I have made edits from last 2 weeks and tourister man show up today forcing his own version again and again. Every time he reply on talkpage he also insert his own version. This false claim is attempt to get admin against me only because i am new but he himself is new too. Wikipedia admins should lock the article or block TouristerMan who is breaking BRD reverting each time with reply. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Njdeda Rlase (talk • contribs) 20:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Is it fair to report editor instead of following rule yourself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Njdeda Rlase (talk • contribs) 20:15, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

VIOLATION of brightline rule by TouristerMan has been made https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BOL_Network&type=revision&diff=739903236&oldid=739901052 Fourth changing of information today. This time he do it in trick that he did only tag my version of information as discredited instead of openly removing because he is afraid of block. In fairness he should be blocked for this trick and gamification in 4th revert in 24 hours breaking brightline rule. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Njdeda Rlase (talk • contribs) 20:22, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

How can he accuse of stone wall when discussion just started today. In this short time he was able to break brightline three revert rule by making 4 edits https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BOL_Network&type=revision&diff=739830023&oldid=739427630 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BOL_Network&type=revision&diff=739853325&oldid=739845837 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BOL_Network&type=revision&diff=739866958&oldid=739860450 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BOL_Network&type=revision&diff=739903236&oldid=739901052 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Njdeda Rlase (talk • contribs) 20:29, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

HERE I have shown agreement to admin to not reverting more https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANjdeda_Rlase&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=739905847&oldid=739905296 It is good faith but is touristerman showing same or his he adding tags in 4th edit? He is adding tags. Is it ok to change style or use gamification and break brightline? Will the admins block the person who is agreeing to not revert more or will they block the person making 4th edit after brightline three reverts in 24 hours. I will wait for your decisions admins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Njdeda Rlase (talk • contribs) 20:45, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• I'm leaving this to another admin to decide, but I would suggest looking at Nideda's talk page, and decide whether or not they had sufficient warning. The first comment was before the last revert. The last comment was after. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:01, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Dear Sirs, Touristerman has made more revert. He has 4 clear reverts in 24 hrs. He put tags after warning. Now he see that admins are taking it light so he made real revert. I warned him https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TouristerMan look at his 4th real revert in 24 hrs https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BOL_Network&type=revision&diff=740032958&oldid=739903236 so he has 4 now non stop !

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BOL_Network&type=revision&diff=739830023&oldid=739427630
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BOL_Network&type=revision&diff=739853325&oldid=739845837
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BOL_Network&type=revision&diff=739866958&oldid=739860450
• hrs https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BOL_Network&type=revision&diff=740032958&oldid=739903236

Please be fair I am not reverting any more but he is non stop. How to discuss like this in editwar? I have read breaking brightline rule revert 4 times in 24 hrs is clear block. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Njdeda Rlase (talk • contribs) 18:27, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• Update 9/18 I have now added every single bit of information that Njdeda Rlase wanted back into the article, and have shown so in my edit summary. I hope this good faith gesture is enough to stop an escalation. TouristerMan (talk) 18:47, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

We did not agree on talkpage. This editor is misleading his view as my view. He did all edit without discussing or understanding what I was trying to do. It is unorganized article. I do not agree to this version it should be discussed but he has reverted. This is violation of brightline three revert rule. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Njdeda Rlase (talk • contribs) 18:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I had to reply to this as it is so hilarious. Here I am saying that I REINSTATED all of your edits in the most recent version and you are saying "We did not agree on talkpage". Forgive me for being ever so blunt but these are your edits I put back in, are you not agreeing to your own edits? Do I have to make Njdeda Rlase agree to his own edits on TP? That is utterly weird. TouristerMan (talk) 18:59, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

No sir, you are lying. Dear administrators, please see the difference between our versions of this article https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BOL_Network&type=revision&diff=740037086&oldid=739901052 He has not discussed this change. It was done in mean time when I was waiting for administrator's response here. It is not easy to discuss when one editor keep reverting. He is also representing me now. Is he allowed to revert without 4th time discussion and call it my will? I have not still understood why he wants to remove my version I am keeping scandal as separate heading too — Preceding unsigned comment added by Njdeda Rlase (talk • contribs) 19:09, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Njdeda Rlase please stay away from ad hom attacks. Btw is there any information that is present in your version and missing in mine? apart from 3 lines which fall foul of WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:RS? Is there any information at all that you added and I have now deleted? TouristerMan (talk) 19:14, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Please keepin mind that TouristerMan has history of unnecessary reports that almost all are resolved contrary to his position. 161.113.11.16 (talk) 16:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello there Mr. "Anon IP who seems to have found the AN3 without going anyplace else". To date I have made one single report, and this is it. I have made no other reports. TouristerMan (talk) 18:04, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

• Result: User:Njdeda Rlase has been warned for edit warring by User:Dennis Brown. See User talk:Njdeda Rlase. If this editor continues to revert the article (before consensus is found) he may be blocked by any administrator. EdJohnston (talk) 05:05, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

User:MoshiKun reported by User:Linguist111 (Result: Blocked)

Page

Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

MoshiKun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:04, 18 September 2016 (UTC) "/* ROC institutions */"
2. Consecutive edits made from 16:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC) to 16:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
   1. 16:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC) "/* ROC government bodies */"
   2. 16:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC) "/* ROC government bodies */"
3. 16:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC) "/* ROC institutions */"
4. 16:00, 18 September 2016 (UTC) ""
5. 15:58, 18 September 2016 (UTC) "/* Proposal under hypothetical reunification */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Blocked – 12 hours by User:Northamerica1000. EdJohnston (talk) 05:14, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

User:XavierItzm reported by User:Parsley Man (Result: Stale)

Page: 2016 Minnesota mall stabbing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: XavierItzm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [173]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [174]
2. [175]
3. [176]
4. [177]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [178]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [179]

Comments:
This is my first rodeo here, so forgive me if I missed something important. Parsley Man (talk) 22:51, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

The user who posted this deleted the info (more than once) even after I took it to TP for consensus and the subject was open. As of now, there is no consensus to delete on the TP. XavierItzm (talk) 22:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Diff 740074512 cited above ["27"] is actuallly the addition of an additional WP:RS: AFP (Agency France Presse).XavierItzm (talk) 22:58, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

You still undid my previous edit, and I'm pretty sure that counts too. Parsley Man (talk) 23:00, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

There was still no sign of the Africa info in the previous version in that diff, so by re-adding it, I'm sure that still qualifies. Parsley Man (talk) 23:04, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Also, I'm going to repeat what EvergreenFir told you, Xavier, you should not re-add challenged info that's related to a BLP/BDP, per WP:BRD and WP:NOCONSENSUS. Parsley Man (talk) 23:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

@Parsley Man: I think this is premature. They did not make a revert after the 3RR warning. They're currently at the 3 revert limit as far as I can tell. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:06, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

While all of these diffs occurred before the 3RR warning (which I actually just noticed, my apologies), I can definitely count four attempts to re-add the Africa info after someone else removed it. Parsley Man (talk) 23:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

The first bold addition doesn't count toward edit warring (usually... unless they're continuing another edit war). So really it's 3 reverts, but 4 edits that you must exceed to violated WP:3RR in my understanding. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:09, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

The [25] diff was not the first time he added the Africa info in. This is the first time it was reverted. Parsley Man (talk) 23:13, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh! You're correct there. I did miss that, sorry. Well, I retract the "premature" comment. Curious how admins will consider the templating part though. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:16, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

It's okay. We all make mistakes. Parsley Man (talk) 02:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Stale. This dispute is now two days old. The filer has just been blocked for a week for a different edit war. EdJohnston (talk) 05:24, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Rnicraje reported by User:General Ization (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page

Maddie Ziegler (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Rnicraje (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:56, 20 September 2016 (UTC) ""
2. 15:48, 20 September 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 740361378 by Sgcosh (talk)"
3. 15:40, 20 September 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 740360067 by General Ization (talk)"
4. 15:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC) ""
5. 15:30, 20 September 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 740359093 by Ssilvers (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:30, 20 September 2016 (UTC) "reply"
2. 15:34, 20 September 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Maddie Ziegler. (TW)"
3. 15:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Maddie Ziegler. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

• Talk page discussion begun -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:09, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments:

Persistently reverts to preferred version after being asked to explain edits in Talk and 3RR warning, only comments in Talk are "It was better the other way." General Ization ^Talk 15:52, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

The editors' changes on other articles also appear to be inappropriate by, for example, changing artists' stage names. Can anyone investigate? Ssilvers (talk) 16:02, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Widr (talk) 16:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

User:174.17.79.52 reported by User:rgr09 (Result: Semi)

Page: Gary Webb (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 174.17.79.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [180]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 06:12, 11 September 2016 [181]
2. 02:08, 15 September 2016 [182]
3. 06:14, 15 September 2016 [183]
4. 23:31, 15 September 2016 [184]
5. 23:39, 15 September 2016 [185]
6. 22:56, 16 September 2016 [186]
7. 00:05, 17 September 2016 [187]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [188] (Put up by Hello71)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [189] (Current as of 17/09/2016)

Comments:

The Gary Webb page is changed as often as three or four times a month by anonymous users who either want to say Webb was murdered or who think there is some sort of controversy, debate, or dispute about Webb's death. This has been a regular problem with the Webb article for years, with the claims put in often grossly false, such as Webb being shot in the back of the head.

In the current dispute, the user found a simple statement at the beginning of the article that Webb committed suicide unacceptable. Instead, he repeatedly changed the text to read "Webb died on December 10, 2004. His death, by two gunshots to the head, was ruled a suicide." On the article's talk page, his justification for this is that "this is probably the most notable fact in the whole story." The article is of course not just about Webb's tragic suicide, but about his career in journalism and the content of and controversy over his "Dark Alliance" series and the four investigations that were launched into the series' claims.

In the past, Webb's suicide was mentioned in the article in two place; the first was a simple statement in the lead that Webb killed himself, and the second was a later section which gave the sources for the statement that Webb killed himself, described the circumstances, such as the two gunshots, and gave the reaction of Webb's family. The article was essentially chronological, so this discussion occurred later in the article. It reflects the conclusions that the coroner, Webb's family, and Webb's biographer all reached and sources were provided for all of these.

User:174.17.79.52 first did multiple reverts, including 4 in 24 hours, to remove the simple statement that Webb committed suicide and replace it with an evasive circumlocution, and now has changed the simple statement at the beginning of the article from "Webb committed suicide" to "Webb committed suicide by shooting himself twice in the head" and put in multiple footnotes that duplicate the sources in the later section. This is consistent with the user's belief that the two shots Webb killed himself with are the most notable fact in the whole story. The point is to emphasize this by moving the claim up to the beginning of the article and burying the circumstance in footnotes. Why is the fact that Webb shot himself twice the most notable fact in the whole story? Seems straightforward POV pushing to me. More work toward a consensus can be done on the talk page, but the edit warring is a waste of everyone's time and should stop; since the user does go to the talk page, I suggest a warning, rather than a ban. Rgr09 (talk) 04:51, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

"Most notable fact in the whole story" may be overstating it but it's certainly notable, notable enough that there is a Wikipedia page dedicated to multiple gunshot suicides where Webb is one of a few examples. Why not mention such an interesting fact in the intro?174.17.79.52 (talk) 07:04, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

The article on Multiple gunshot suicide is a collection of trivia, with problematic links to problematic articles. It links to the article on Pierre Bérégovoy, which claims that Bérégovoy shot himself twice. This is false, see the French Wikipedia article on Bérégovoy. It links to the article on François de Grossouvre, which claims Grossouvre shot himself twice. This is also false, see the French Wikipedia article on Grossouvre. It links to the article on Abu Nidal, which gives multiple versions of Nidal's death, but does not state that Nidal was a multiple gunshot suicide. The only three links that stand up are Webb, Frank Stanford, and Yuriy Kravchenko. Neither the Stanford nor the Kravchenko articles put the multiple gunshot suicide in the lead. Not even Stanford, who shot himself in the heart three times, a death that was the subject of an Indigo Girls song. Why should Webb's death treated as more "interesting" than Stanford's? Rgr09 (talk) 23:39, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

The leads for Stanford and Kravchenko are three sentences each, and neither mentions their death at all. Webb's intro is 14 sentences, plenty of room for 7 words describing the unusual facts of his death. Why not include them? And I'd say you just made a good argument for expanding the intro about Stanford as well.174.17.79.52 (talk) 10:38, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

The description you want to add is already IN the article. The sources you cite for it are already IN the article. The fact that it was a multiple gunshot suicide is noted in the infobox. The details of Webb's suicide are given in the section on Webb's death where they belongs, the sources are given as well. Why do you want to add the same content to the article a THIRD time, MINUS the description of Webb's difficulties and his family's conviction that he committed suicide? Why do you insist on putting this truncated, hence misleading statement in the lead SUMMARY? This is WP:undue weight: "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." Rgr09 (talk) 14:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

The same argument could be made about mentioning his suicide without the unusual detail of the two gunshots. I would accept removing all mention of his death from the lead.174.17.79.52 (talk) 11:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected three months. It looks like the IP editor is willing to keep reverting forever to get his version of the sentence included in the article. Instead of reverting, use the talk page to persuade the others. EdJohnston (talk) 04:56, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Nice idea in theory, but Rgr09 appears to have made it a personal campaign (for quite some time) to maintain his/her version of the article and is probably not persuadable. 174.17.79.52 (talk) 11:06, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Rgr09 has done a superb job with the page. He has explained the issue with your proposed revision and the rules of the forum. So I'm not sure what else can be done.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

User:188.2.133.143 reported by User:Sir Sputnik (Result: Semi, ARBMAC alert)

Page

Nemanja Nikolić (footballer, born 1987) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

188.2.133.143 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

• diff

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:11, 18 September 2016 (UTC) "ol then remove this from milion other articles with double nationalities and there will be no problems. Till that your edit is recognized as a vandalism"
2. 18:27, 18 September 2016 (UTC) "stop with vandalism, Nikolic have Seriban citizenship, he was born and lives in Serbia...also have Serbian name and surname. Here are sources."
3. 15:18, 18 September 2016 (UTC) "there is no edit war, just look at his birthplace... he is from Serbia, have Serbian passport and lived whole his life in Serbia. He plays for Hungary as a naturalized player."
4. 13:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 739768794 by Norden1990 (talk) its absolute crazy to remove hus nationality, he has serbian passport and eas born and lived in Serbia whole his life"
5. 13:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC "Undid revision 739466103 by KIENGIR (talk) not corect, Yugoslavia was country not nationality"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC) "/* Nemanja Nikolić (footballer, born 1987) */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Despite being told several times that it does not belong there, this IP insists on re-adding a non-sporting nationality to the lede of this article. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:32, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected one month, and user has been alerted under WP:ARBMAC. Warring about a player's nationality might be considered nationalist edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 00:07, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

User:71.226.122.49 reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page

Jared Taylor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

71.226.122.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:38, 21 September 2016 (UTC) "restored to previous version without weasel words, clarified info on expert opinions on subject and associated organizations"
2. 17:27, 21 September 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 740496994 by PeterTheFourth (talk) cleaning up those pesky weasel words"
3. 12:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC) "added citations"
4. 11:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC) "deleted weasel words"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Warning given by other editor on talk page. Semi-protection would likely be a good outcome. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:41, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

The edit I made does not remove any information, and makes for a more accurate and neutral article. Two sentences using weasel words have been modified in the direction of a neutral tone. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:45, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

See WP:BRD. You made a change and it was disputed (reverted). After that, you should go to the article talk page to seek consensus for your version. Constant reverting to your preferred version is edit warring. clpo13_(talk) 17:47, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours If more disruption on the article occurs report to RFPP or let me know. NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Jack Sebastian reported by User:AlexTheWhovian (Result: blocked)

Page: Luke Cage (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jack Sebastian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [190]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [191] (initial edit)
2. [192] (revert of revert)
3. [193] (attempted force of view)
4. [194] (revert of revert)
5. [195] (revert of revert)
6. [196] (re-adding after self-revert)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warned in discussion linked below.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Luke Cage (TV series)#Uncited episode titles

Comments:

The editor is currently, and has been known to, use uncivil language with other editors, even when know that they are the only editor who holds their view and refuses to accept common sense and WikiProject-wide consensus. In this case, the editor attempted to remove sourced content because it was not sourced in the way of his liking, and then attempted to forced his own view on the article while a discussion was in place, and then when reverted, accused other editors of removing sourced content, which is exactly what he did in the original edits/reverts. Alex|The|Whovian^? 06:21, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Alex got here moments before I did. Basically, this is yet another trip to this noticeboard for AlexTheWhovian, who's been here repeated times for edit-warring his personal version of a given article. His defense is - as it always has been before - that the 'article was fine before the editor came along and messed it all up'.

The problem here is that Alex took the sloppy route of defending a citation at the top of an episode list column (as seen here), kind of slapdash shorthand of citing multiple items under the same source. All well and good when you are in a hurry, but utter crap when it comes to expanding on the article later on (ie. adding more information as to why an episode title was chosen outside the primary source of just providing the overall names, or a pre-emption of an airdate due to unforeseen circumstances, etc.). I tried to explain this to the user, but - as in other instances of his many, many visits to this noticeboard, he displays an inordinate amount of stubbornness that isn't really in keeping with the idea of collaborative editing.

So, anyhoo, I added the refs to the titles and the airdate, removing the collective referencing. I also added info about why the episode titles were chosen (cited, of course)^a. Alex chose to remove those as well. I warned him that I would report him if he didn't stop edit-warring after the second revert; he reverted it out, calling me a 'troll, and complaining about my salty language.

I just want the editor to begin to work harder and more collaboratively with other editors. I am tired of coming across his utter intransigence when it comes to working with others. Articles change and get better - he needs to allow that to happen, and not edit-war until it ends up at this noticeboard. Since he's been here several, several times, I don't know how he's going to learn that.

Wow. Okay. Look at Alex's pet version of the episode section: 1

and then look at the version I provided: 2. Not the appearance of a binding opening paragraph, with references that was removed in Alex's edit-warring.

(A small note, while grabbing Diffs for use here, I unintentionally reverted. I then self-reverted to the pre-report version) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:40, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Moments before you did. Any report from you would have only been retaliatory, as I have not violated any form of 3RR. It is you attempting to force your own view against those of other editors, as it is you who has been reverted by multiple editors, and have no other person sharing or supporting your views. Yes - the article was fine before the editor came along and messed it all up, as no other editor has disagreed with the layout, and many more contributing to the reference in the table header. See how the editor has attempted to force their views while discussing the content. And you are more than welcome to add the introductory paragraph into the episode section without reverting other editors and attempting (and failing) to hide the addition of it alongside your forced views. The layout has been supported by the Television WikiProject, and parameters exist in {{Episode table}} solely for the use of how the content was laid out, but the editor refuses to accept this. Alex|The|Whovian^? 06:54, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

See, this is why I suggest that you learn how Wikipedia works before claiming that you do. This is also why you have claimed that every other editor who has taken you to task for edit-warring here on repeated occasions is - in your eyes - always guilty of "retaliating".

Edit-warring can occur if you add spurious content or remove cited information even once. The actual edits I made that Alex is up in arms about are #3 and #4. Number 1 and 2 were me removing what clearly appeared to be uncited information. After discovering the misplaced reference, I decided to fix it and add more information to the section (reverts # and #4). The last two reverts that Alex cobbled onto this complaint (probably hoping that inflating the # of reverts would have a more negative reaction by an admin) were the ones I explained were an error on my part - they were entirely unintentional reverts.

Lastly, the episode refernce formatting style Alex advocates is usually changed (to the format that I used) by the time it gets to GA or FA status. Why not get it on its way to GA sooner rather than later?

So, Alex is actually complaining about two edits by myself in the article, not four, and certainly not six. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:04, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I know how it works plenty. What you don't seem to know what works is consensus' between editors and projects. You would rather ignore that, ignore specific ideas that have been implemented for a specific purpose, and use your own decisions. Your accusations of my edit-warring reminds me of that time when you reported me and it was determined there wasn't any violation. Because you wish to see editors get blocked left, right and center, if they don't agree with you. I am, as you put it, "up in arms" over all of your edits. I may not have reverted your first edits, but I most certainly disagree with your blank-face removal of sourced content. The reference was not misplaced - it was placed exactly where it was meant to be, added to by multiple editors - and it seems that you need to educated yourself on the documentation and usage for that template, given that it seems you have little or even zero knowledge of it and its usage. The excuse of your reverts was attempting to plug in extra (and possibly valid) information while at the same time, blending it with reverts of other editor's edits. This does not excuse your edits. If you wanted to add the new information and leave the status quo (which apparently the editor is also unaware of) while the discussion was in place, you should have done it separately. To sum it all up, I am complaining not about four of yours edits, certainly not two, but most definitely about all six of them. Alex|The|Whovian^? 07:10, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I have blocked User:Jack Sebastian for 48 hours. The number of reverts on this article is between 3 and 5, depending on how you count them. In any case there is no acknowledgement of error displayed above, so I think a short block is appropriate. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:36, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Gl dili reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Warned)

Page

Turkey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Gl dili (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:21, 20 September 2016 (UTC) ""
2. 04:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 740286517 by Dr.K. (talk)"
3. 04:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 740284959 by Dr.K. (talk)"
4. 04:05, 20 September 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 740282552 by Dr.K. (talk)"
5. 02:52, 20 September 2016 (UTC) "Add emblem"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 04:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Turkey. (TW★TW)"
2. 04:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Turkey. (TW★TW)"
3. 04:18, 20 September 2016 (UTC) "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Turkey. (TW★TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 17:58, 20 September 2016 (UTC) "/* The emblem */ reply to Anna"
2. 19:55, 20 September 2016 (UTC) "/* The emblem */ comment"

Comments:

Despite numerous explanations to him/her s/he will not stop edit-warring adding an unsourced emblem of Turkey at the infobox without consensus. Also user faces language/communication problems. Editor also promises that s/he will stop edit-warring: "Sorry. You can remove, I will not edit until i'm understand how to correctly" yet he goes on to revert anyway. He has done this multiple times. See 24 past the hour:"I'm new user, please have pity on me, do not block!", two minutes later s/he reverts on Turkey. So much for pleading to be spared the block. Again 13 past the hour:"Sorry i'm bad speak English but why can not add emblem Turkey? Thanks, and sorry", four minutes later s/he reverts on Turkey. Possible socking. Also personal attacks. The emblem at the infobox has been a subject of longterm disruption by other socks. Example: diff. Dr. K. 01:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

• Result: User:Gl dili is warned they may be blocked if they restore the supposed Turkish emblem to the article again without first getting consensus on the talk page. So far the opinions at Talk:Turkey#The emblem indicate it does not have consensus, since it is not even an official emblem. EdJohnston (talk) 14:01, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

User:BD2412 reported by User:Lagrange613 (Result: No violation)

Page: Henry DeWolf Smyth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: BD2412 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [197]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [198]
2. [199]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [200], [201], [202]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [203] – the conclusion, in which BD resolves to continue edit warring

Comments:
BD insists on piping links to New York to their own redirect, New York (state), i.e. [[New York (state)|New York]], throughout the encyclopedia. I dispute the merit of this action and reverted it at Henry DeWolf Smyth. BD claims that consensus of a small number of editors at Talk:New York gives him/her the right to edit-war his/her preferred piping into the HDS article, and presumably throughout the encyclopedia. In fact, there is not even consensus there for these widespread changes (multiple editors have objected there and BD has ignored them), and a hypothetical such consensus would not entitle BD to edit war. That an administrator doesn't understand that thinking you're right doesn't entitle you to edit war is particularly troubling. Lagrange613 04:20, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Lagrange613 is inviting a WP:BOOMERANG. Despite his rather aggressive case of WP:NOTGETTINGIT, a discussion resulting in eleven editors favoring a maintenance task necessary for the repair of literally thousands of incorrect links does establish consensus over a handful of drive-by objections, some citing no policy in their favor. Editors including @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), JFG, Bearcat, Diego Moya, and Emir of Wikipedia: can attest to the support for this effort. It would be most deeply appreciated if those of us who are trying to find and fix erroneous links would be allowed to carry on without these sorts of histrionics. bd2412 T 04:37, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

So you're sticking to "I'm right, so I can edit war," even here. Gotcha. Lagrange613 04:56, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

As noted, there is an ongoing maintenance project underway to clean up links which are erroneously pointing to New York State when New York City is actually the intended topic. As part of this task, it is necessary for the people doing it to somehow mark links that they have already checked, so that the next person who comes along to assist doesn't waste their time revisiting links that don't need to be checked again — and because Wikipedia doesn't have a way to add annotations to an article's "what links here" list, the only viable way to actually mark a link as checked is to temporarily pipe it through the redirect, so that it's explicitly set off as a "don't check this link again" list. Lagrange613 can fail to understand this all he likes, but it's entirely proper and he's cruising for a WP:DISRUPT sanction if he doesn't drop the stick. Linking to a topic through a redirect is WP:NOTBROKEN — actually sometimes it's an unavoidable and necessary part of fixing something else that is broken, as it is here — and is not an issue that warrants Lagrange's attitude about it. Bearcat (talk) 04:41, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I hoped to avoid the merits of the action and focus on BD's behavior and what constitutes consensus. I'll just note that this is explicitly not a temporary action—the language suggesting it be temporary is struck out in BD's original post at Talk:New York#Proposed action to resolve incorrect incoming links. I'm not sure what on what basis you propose to sanction me for WP:DISRUPT, unless you consider disagreeing with you to be disruptive. Lagrange613 04:56, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Continuing to revert-war over something for which the entirely defensible and unavoidably necessary reason why it's happening has already been explained to you is pretty disruptive. And, for that matter, administrators are allowed to "edit war" as much as necessary when it comes to disruptive edits (e.g. extreme WP:BLP violations, persistent interference with necessary cleanup projects, etc.) even if they technically step over the WP:3RR line in the process (which BD didn't). Bearcat (talk) 04:59, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

So your basis for seeking to sanction me is "An administrator and I disagree with you." Nice. Lagrange613 10:33, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Er, no. It's got nothing to do with my personal opinion; it's got to do with the fact that there's an established cleanup project underway, fully backed by an established consensus that the cleanup is necessary, and you're still choosing to dispute it even though it's been explained to you. That's not "I disagree with you" — it's "the reason for this is clear, and necessary, and fully backed by consensus, and has already been explained to you", which is a completely different thing. Bearcat (talk) 16:52, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

A short test of 1,000 of the "New York" links showed that about 5% are pointing to the wrong entity, the state, when the city is meant, or the other way around. If all are changed to be "New York state" or "New York city" we will then know to double check all new links that are just "New York". I also pointed out that there is a third entity. "New York, the place so nice they named it thrice". People also use New York to mean Manhattan which is New York County. God forbid people born on Staten Island or in Queens should be mixed with people born in Manhattan. So New York City can be further disambiguated to "Manhattan, New York City" where appropriate. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:01, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment on the outright canvassing by User:BD2412. _Muffled ^Pocketed 05:37, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • What? Evidence, maybe? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:01, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: I have been accused of wrongdoing. I am entitled to defend myself, and to call relevant witnesses in my defense, right? This process, after all, is not a !vote. bd2412 T 11:27, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Five editors already noted as part of a pre-existing 'consensus,' pinged: two subsequently arrive- one an admin- and proceed to attempt to WP:PILEDRIVE the reporting editor. And that's not canvassing. _Muffled ^Pocketed 11:56, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:CANVASSING is inappropriate where it "compromises the normal consensus decision-making process". No consensus-based determination is being made here, so applying that policy here would be WP:CREEP, and would intimidate and silence editors seeking to defend themselves against accusations. My intention was that other involved editors would explain what we are doing with the contested task, which they (and others) did. I did not ask anyone to piledrive anyone. bd2412 T 12:33, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure you did not; but, as a consequence, it could hardly have been unexpected. _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:39, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment by uninvolved non-admin: User:Lagrange613, WP:ANEW is for edit-warring, and particularly for violations of WP:3RR. It takes 4 reverts within 24 hours to violate WP:3RR. BD2412 has made exactly two reverts on the article, the same number that you have. This is not edit-warring (and if it is you are edit-warring as well and will receive the same sanction as he does), it's a simple content dispute/disagreement. If you disagree with the change, then start an WP:RfC on the matter (on the New York article's talk page -- perhaps in collaboration with BD2412 so that the wording of the RfC is clear, unambiguous, and neutral). Or take it to WP:ANI. It doesn't belong here at WP:ANEW, at least not at present. No one is going to get blocked over two reverts on Henry DeWolf Smyth, nor can administrators monitoring this page adjudicate content disputes. The most that will happen is that Henry DeWolf Smyth may get full protected, which solves nothing since the locus of the dispute is the disambiguation of links to New York, an entirely different article which is linked to from tens of thousands of Wikipedia articles. -- Softlavender (talk) 06:59, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

This is an edit-warring complaint, not a 3RR complaint and not a content dispute. If you want to define edit warring by counting, then I did one extra revert than is called for in WP:BRD, and BD did two—twice as many! But, of course, edit warring is about more than counting, just like consensus. I certainly hope no one is blocked over this—that would be grossly out of proportion. I would like BD to be reminded by someone he/she will listen to that the bit does not permit him/her to seek a dubious local consensus and then apply that across the encyclopedia regardless of consensus elsewhere. Since BD is the one who wants to make the change, it is on him/her to start an RfC, which is what he/she should have done from the start. Lagrange613 10:33, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Lagrange613, you made the exact same number of reverts as BD2412, and you're foolishly bringing this to ANEW for two simple reverts on the part of both of you. Your statement that "I certainly hope no one is blocked over this—that would be grossly out of proportion" reveals that you are simply disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. If you disagree with the edit or procedure, then engage in dispute resolution; don't bring a self-acknowledged spurious "edit-warring" report to ANEW unless you want to be hit with a WP:BOOMERANG, which is a likely occurrence for this filing. Softlavender (talk) 11:08, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

There is no consensus anywhere else in Wikipedia that linking to a topic via a redirect is a bad thing; there are times, such as marking links as "cleaned" in an active cleanup project so that participants don't waste their time rechecking links that have already been checked, when it's a necessary thing. Bearcat (talk) 16:56, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

• To be completely accurate, I made one revert, which Lagrange613 responded to with his second revert. The edit being characterized as a second "revert" on my part was my clicking a button on AWB (a semi-autonomous bot programmed to scoop up all links to New York and fix them in concordance with the requirements of the maintenance task). I didn't even realize that this page was in the most recent run. This was well over 24 hours after my first revert. bd2412 T 11:31, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

• Edits using AWB are not an exemption at WP:3RRNO. There are reminders at WP:AWB that "You take full responsibility for any action you perform using AutoWikiBrowser." --David Biddulph (talk) 13:18, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

• My point is that it was not a volitional effort to revert the last edit. It was an edit in the course of a routine maintenance task (and well over a day later). bd2412 T 13:22, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment by tagged editor: To me the consensus on the piping of links from New York was clear. What consensus has not been yet reached on was if the article currently at New York would be moved to New York (state), and if the draft at Draft:New York (overview) would be moving to New York. I think that User:BD2412 should not be punished. Perhaps User:Lagrange613 should be, as he appears not only to be acting against the consensus, but also appears to be acting like a WP:OWNER of Henry DeWolf Smyth. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:34, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: I don't understand why User:Lagrange613 insists on trying to disrupt a process of improving the encyclopedia by identifying and correcting erroneous links. However, User:BD2412 has every right to proceed with his cleanup efforts despite this disruption, and it does not rise to the level of edit-warring. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:58, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
• No violation. There is no edit-warring here, at least not on this article, and to the extent there are reverts, they are by both editors. Despite what Lagrange613 says about avoiding the merits of what is being done, that should be the focus of any dispute Lagrange has with BD2412's actions, and this venue is not the right place to address that dispute.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:39, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Depauldem reported by User:Softlavender (Result: Warned)

Page: The Departed (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Depauldem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [204]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [205] (not a revert but a disputed bold change)

The following are reverts:

1. [206]
2. [207]
3. [208] (note: this had a temporary consensus on Talk but was subsequently refuted on Talk and reverted by one of the Talk participants)
4. [209]
5. [210]
6. [211]
7. [212]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [213]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [214]

Comments:
User has a well-documented history of edit-warring and disruptive and disputatious editing within his total edit count of a mere 436 edits on Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 22:44, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

By my count, Softlavender has no less than six examples of edit warring on this page over the same time period and a history of edit warring on the same page in the past with other users. I was the one who activated a discussion on the talk page, where consensus was reached before this editor began disrupting an agreed upon edit. I have also opened the discussion on the film project page to solicit input from other editors in an attempt to reach consensus. Frankly, I am disappointed this user made this complaint rather than responding to the ongoing discussion. This seems a clear cut case of unwarranted deletion of factual additions to the page's production section that are supported by multiple reliable sources. I would also add that Softlavender even states on the talk page that some of the edits she is now complaining about "can stay". Depauldem (talk) 22:56, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I have never breached 3RR, nor was I ever talk-page notified. I have always been merely upholding policy, facts, and talk-page consensus. You have deliberately been edit-warring against talk-page consensus, reason, and endlessly repeated explanations, even despite a talk page warning. Softlavender (talk) 23:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually you cited no policy whatsoever to support your position, despite being asked repeatedly to do so. The facts do not support your position, which even today is shifting (are you really saying it was mostly in Boston after agreeing that 90% filmed in New York??). At best, you muddled an established consensus. You certainly did not establish a new one. I guess I should have reported you as well and placed notice on your talk page. I was naive to think we could resolve this in the talk page. Depauldem (talk) 23:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is not only a policy, it's one of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia. I cited that from the beginning, and three times so far: [215], [216], [217]. As I've now noted on the talk page, that PDF is unreliable and inaccurate, and should not be used. -- Softlavender (talk) 23:41, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

And NPOV has nothing whatsoever to do with simple facts like: $6 million was spent in Massachusetts. And I know you want the report to be inaccurate and unreliable, but its widely reported in publications across the globe and is overseen by studio execs, including WB, who made the movie in question. Depauldem (talk) 23:56, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

It most certainly does in that article and in that paragraph, and that was explained to you exhaustively seven different times. Softlavender (talk) 00:05, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

It most certainly does? I know you want it most certainly to want it to, but that doesn't make it so. Please, let's keep this on the talk page. I have agreed to multiple concessions for you, like removing the "only" language, removing the thoughts of Matt Damon and even saying that I am fine with including the quote from the book for Scorsese. Depauldem (talk) 00:16, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

It is already on the Talk page, Depauldem. You are the one bringing the content dispute to this page, edit-warring against consensus, and violating 3RR. Softlavender (talk) 00:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

• Result: User:Depauldem is warned for edit warring. I am relying on this assurance on his talk page. He has agreed to wait for a clear consensus on Talk before reverting again. EdJohnston (talk) 19:21, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

User:125.99.253.42 reported by User:Altenmann (Result: Malformed)

Page: Sharma (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 125.99.253.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs..--Bbb23 (talk) 20:52, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Lysimachi reported by User:Lemongirl942 (Result: )

Page

Han Taiwanese (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Lysimachi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC) "Please bring it to talk, Montanabw, stop nonsense edit war. WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, WP:LEAD, WP:REDUNDANCY, WP:OR, WP:V, WP:SYN"
2. [218]
3. [219]
4. [220]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. [221]
2. [222]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 06:11, 21 September 2016 (UTC) "/* Taiwan Han Chinese */ add"
2. 15:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC) "/* Taiwan Han Chinese */ reply"
3. 12:59, 22 September 2016 (UTC) "/* "Han Taiwanese" and "Taiwanese Hans" */ reply"
4. [223]
5. [224]

Comments:

Although not a 3RR violation, I am asking for an indefinite block for this editor who has already been blocked twice previously for edit warring on this article. The editor has no intention of understanding that discussions are important and will continue to edit war and WP:OWN their version of the article. They have been blocked twice already and I see this as a severe case of WP:IDHT. More importantly, I also see language issues and often they never reply properly to queries. This is wasting an enormous of time and I think the way forward is an indefinite block. If not an indefinite block at least the editor should be restricted to suggest changes on the talk page and not edit the article directly. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:36, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I am asking for an indefinite block... Why not an indef or temporary pageban? If the editwarring is on one article than it seems far less punitive to PBAN them than to indef block them. Or if preferred, a combination of both a short escalated block (say 1 week) and a PBAN (say 3 months or whatever). An indef at this point, with only a 24 hour and 48 block is an extreme punitive measure. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Mr rnddude Based on my previous interactions with the editor, I am highly sceptical that they would adhere to a PBAN. They have done this edit warring on another page as well and considering that this has been going on for a month or more, my patience has run out. Part of the problem also seems to be English comprehension. I have tried discussing this at DR (moderated by UY Scuti, but the editor stopped responding) and also at ANI but nothing came of it --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I am highly sceptical that they would adhere to a PBAN - I like to think of it another way, if they adhere to the PBAN and their other contributions are of a good caliber, then, carry on. If they fail to adhere to the PBAN, WP:ROPE at work. I'll take a look at the DR and ANI threads, my thinking may change, you never know. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:02, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

User:BD2412 reported by User:Lagrange613 (Result: No violation)

Page: Henry DeWolf Smyth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: BD2412 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [225]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [226]
2. [227]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [228], [229], [230]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [231] – the conclusion, in which BD resolves to continue edit warring

Comments:
BD insists on piping links to New York to their own redirect, New York (state), i.e. [[New York (state)|New York]], throughout the encyclopedia. I dispute the merit of this action and reverted it at Henry DeWolf Smyth. BD claims that consensus of a small number of editors at Talk:New York gives him/her the right to edit-war his/her preferred piping into the HDS article, and presumably throughout the encyclopedia. In fact, there is not even consensus there for these widespread changes (multiple editors have objected there and BD has ignored them), and a hypothetical such consensus would not entitle BD to edit war. That an administrator doesn't understand that thinking you're right doesn't entitle you to edit war is particularly troubling. Lagrange613 04:20, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Lagrange613 is inviting a WP:BOOMERANG. Despite his rather aggressive case of WP:NOTGETTINGIT, a discussion resulting in eleven editors favoring a maintenance task necessary for the repair of literally thousands of incorrect links does establish consensus over a handful of drive-by objections, some citing no policy in their favor. Editors including @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), JFG, Bearcat, Diego Moya, and Emir of Wikipedia: can attest to the support for this effort. It would be most deeply appreciated if those of us who are trying to find and fix erroneous links would be allowed to carry on without these sorts of histrionics. bd2412 T 04:37, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

So you're sticking to "I'm right, so I can edit war," even here. Gotcha. Lagrange613 04:56, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

As noted, there is an ongoing maintenance project underway to clean up links which are erroneously pointing to New York State when New York City is actually the intended topic. As part of this task, it is necessary for the people doing it to somehow mark links that they have already checked, so that the next person who comes along to assist doesn't waste their time revisiting links that don't need to be checked again — and because Wikipedia doesn't have a way to add annotations to an article's "what links here" list, the only viable way to actually mark a link as checked is to temporarily pipe it through the redirect, so that it's explicitly set off as a "don't check this link again" list. Lagrange613 can fail to understand this all he likes, but it's entirely proper and he's cruising for a WP:DISRUPT sanction if he doesn't drop the stick. Linking to a topic through a redirect is WP:NOTBROKEN — actually sometimes it's an unavoidable and necessary part of fixing something else that is broken, as it is here — and is not an issue that warrants Lagrange's attitude about it. Bearcat (talk) 04:41, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I hoped to avoid the merits of the action and focus on BD's behavior and what constitutes consensus. I'll just note that this is explicitly not a temporary action—the language suggesting it be temporary is struck out in BD's original post at Talk:New York#Proposed action to resolve incorrect incoming links. I'm not sure what on what basis you propose to sanction me for WP:DISRUPT, unless you consider disagreeing with you to be disruptive. Lagrange613 04:56, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Continuing to revert-war over something for which the entirely defensible and unavoidably necessary reason why it's happening has already been explained to you is pretty disruptive. And, for that matter, administrators are allowed to "edit war" as much as necessary when it comes to disruptive edits (e.g. extreme WP:BLP violations, persistent interference with necessary cleanup projects, etc.) even if they technically step over the WP:3RR line in the process (which BD didn't). Bearcat (talk) 04:59, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

So your basis for seeking to sanction me is "An administrator and I disagree with you." Nice. Lagrange613 10:33, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Er, no. It's got nothing to do with my personal opinion; it's got to do with the fact that there's an established cleanup project underway, fully backed by an established consensus that the cleanup is necessary, and you're still choosing to dispute it even though it's been explained to you. That's not "I disagree with you" — it's "the reason for this is clear, and necessary, and fully backed by consensus, and has already been explained to you", which is a completely different thing. Bearcat (talk) 16:52, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

A short test of 1,000 of the "New York" links showed that about 5% are pointing to the wrong entity, the state, when the city is meant, or the other way around. If all are changed to be "New York state" or "New York city" we will then know to double check all new links that are just "New York". I also pointed out that there is a third entity. "New York, the place so nice they named it thrice". People also use New York to mean Manhattan which is New York County. God forbid people born on Staten Island or in Queens should be mixed with people born in Manhattan. So New York City can be further disambiguated to "Manhattan, New York City" where appropriate. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:01, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment on the outright canvassing by User:BD2412. _Muffled ^Pocketed 05:37, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • What? Evidence, maybe? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:01, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: I have been accused of wrongdoing. I am entitled to defend myself, and to call relevant witnesses in my defense, right? This process, after all, is not a !vote. bd2412 T 11:27, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Five editors already noted as part of a pre-existing 'consensus,' pinged: two subsequently arrive- one an admin- and proceed to attempt to WP:PILEDRIVE the reporting editor. And that's not canvassing. _Muffled ^Pocketed 11:56, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:CANVASSING is inappropriate where it "compromises the normal consensus decision-making process". No consensus-based determination is being made here, so applying that policy here would be WP:CREEP, and would intimidate and silence editors seeking to defend themselves against accusations. My intention was that other involved editors would explain what we are doing with the contested task, which they (and others) did. I did not ask anyone to piledrive anyone. bd2412 T 12:33, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure you did not; but, as a consequence, it could hardly have been unexpected. _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:39, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment by uninvolved non-admin: User:Lagrange613, WP:ANEW is for edit-warring, and particularly for violations of WP:3RR. It takes 4 reverts within 24 hours to violate WP:3RR. BD2412 has made exactly two reverts on the article, the same number that you have. This is not edit-warring (and if it is you are edit-warring as well and will receive the same sanction as he does), it's a simple content dispute/disagreement. If you disagree with the change, then start an WP:RfC on the matter (on the New York article's talk page -- perhaps in collaboration with BD2412 so that the wording of the RfC is clear, unambiguous, and neutral). Or take it to WP:ANI. It doesn't belong here at WP:ANEW, at least not at present. No one is going to get blocked over two reverts on Henry DeWolf Smyth, nor can administrators monitoring this page adjudicate content disputes. The most that will happen is that Henry DeWolf Smyth may get full protected, which solves nothing since the locus of the dispute is the disambiguation of links to New York, an entirely different article which is linked to from tens of thousands of Wikipedia articles. -- Softlavender (talk) 06:59, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

This is an edit-warring complaint, not a 3RR complaint and not a content dispute. If you want to define edit warring by counting, then I did one extra revert than is called for in WP:BRD, and BD did two—twice as many! But, of course, edit warring is about more than counting, just like consensus. I certainly hope no one is blocked over this—that would be grossly out of proportion. I would like BD to be reminded by someone he/she will listen to that the bit does not permit him/her to seek a dubious local consensus and then apply that across the encyclopedia regardless of consensus elsewhere. Since BD is the one who wants to make the change, it is on him/her to start an RfC, which is what he/she should have done from the start. Lagrange613 10:33, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Lagrange613, you made the exact same number of reverts as BD2412, and you're foolishly bringing this to ANEW for two simple reverts on the part of both of you. Your statement that "I certainly hope no one is blocked over this—that would be grossly out of proportion" reveals that you are simply disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. If you disagree with the edit or procedure, then engage in dispute resolution; don't bring a self-acknowledged spurious "edit-warring" report to ANEW unless you want to be hit with a WP:BOOMERANG, which is a likely occurrence for this filing. Softlavender (talk) 11:08, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

There is no consensus anywhere else in Wikipedia that linking to a topic via a redirect is a bad thing; there are times, such as marking links as "cleaned" in an active cleanup project so that participants don't waste their time rechecking links that have already been checked, when it's a necessary thing. Bearcat (talk) 16:56, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

• To be completely accurate, I made one revert, which Lagrange613 responded to with his second revert. The edit being characterized as a second "revert" on my part was my clicking a button on AWB (a semi-autonomous bot programmed to scoop up all links to New York and fix them in concordance with the requirements of the maintenance task). I didn't even realize that this page was in the most recent run. This was well over 24 hours after my first revert. bd2412 T 11:31, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

• Edits using AWB are not an exemption at WP:3RRNO. There are reminders at WP:AWB that "You take full responsibility for any action you perform using AutoWikiBrowser." --David Biddulph (talk) 13:18, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

• My point is that it was not a volitional effort to revert the last edit. It was an edit in the course of a routine maintenance task (and well over a day later). bd2412 T 13:22, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment by tagged editor: To me the consensus on the piping of links from New York was clear. What consensus has not been yet reached on was if the article currently at New York would be moved to New York (state), and if the draft at Draft:New York (overview) would be moving to New York. I think that User:BD2412 should not be punished. Perhaps User:Lagrange613 should be, as he appears not only to be acting against the consensus, but also appears to be acting like a WP:OWNER of Henry DeWolf Smyth. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:34, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: I don't understand why User:Lagrange613 insists on trying to disrupt a process of improving the encyclopedia by identifying and correcting erroneous links. However, User:BD2412 has every right to proceed with his cleanup efforts despite this disruption, and it does not rise to the level of edit-warring. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:58, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
• No violation. There is no edit-warring here, at least not on this article, and to the extent there are reverts, they are by both editors. Despite what Lagrange613 says about avoiding the merits of what is being done, that should be the focus of any dispute Lagrange has with BD2412's actions, and this venue is not the right place to address that dispute.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:39, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

User:The Drover's Wife reported by User:Spacecowboy420 (Result: Page protected)

Page

Safe Schools Coalition Australia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

The Drover's Wife (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 04:49, 22 September 2016 (UTC) "If the source states what you just said it did, that does not support the claim you made in the text. Can you please take that to talk?"
2. 03:16, 22 September 2016 (UTC) "if the text is as quoted in that edit summary, the source doesn't support the claim - "ask another teacher" is not challenging a teacher"
3. 00:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 740574020 by B20097 (talk) why is this significant?"
4. 14:58, 21 September 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 740511650 by Spacecowboy420 (talk) take it to talk"

previous cases of edit warring or "gaming the system" to show a pattern of behavior

1st example

[[232]] 1st revert

[[233]] 2nd

[[234]] 3rd

[[235]] 4th revert in 28 hours (gaming the system)

2nd example

[[236]] 1st

[[237]] 2nd

[[238]] 3rd

[[239]] 4th

[[240]] 5th revert in 36 hours

3rd example

[[241]] 1st revert

[[242]] 2nd

[[243]] 3rd

[[244]] 4th revert within 24 hours.

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[[245]] warning given on article page, in response to 4 reverts within 24 hours, that I did not report as I hoped to resolve the content dispute in talk rather than in ANI, and I requested that the editor self revert to avoid a 3RR report/block.

[[246]] later comments about this editor edit warring were met with comments such as "If attempts to discuss controversial additions to the article are just ignored (as my attempts to discuss the actual text of your changes and come to a consensus version have been), then yes, they will be reverted." that show a total disregard for the edit warring rules, in cases where the editor doesn't get their way.

[[247]] 3RR warning on editor's talk page

[[248]] 3RR warning on editor's talk page

[[249]] Edit warring warning on editor's talk page

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

(also posted in warning diffs) [[250]] - request not to edit war and to revert the 4th revert.

the whole article talk page is full of discussion and proposals.

Comments:

There is no edit war going on here. There are a ton of different edits being made to the article page by different editors, some of which are uncontroversial and some of which are, as well as discussions on the talk page (which Spacecowboy420 is ignoring). B20097, who usually shares Spacecowboy420's positions, is working towards consensus regarding these proposed changes (and achieving it), while Spacecowboy420 seems to enjoy ignoring attempts at discussion, reverting, and trying to (considering that there is a good-faith user making ideologically aligned edits) trap users who disagree with him into breaking 3RR. Par for the course behaviour for Spacecowboy420: a lot of work has been done between users with vast ideological disagreements towards resolving disputes on this article, all of it in spite of his behaviour. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:01, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

The issue that two of these edits are about has now been resolved - again, completely without Spacecowboy420's involvement. Interested editors may want to peruse his edit history, as his edit history appears to be littered with aggressive behaviour in content disputes and very little effort towards participating in consensus editing. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:13, 22 September 2016

While there is certainly a number of content disputes on the article, and too many reverts by numerous editors, the vast majority of editors (both those for and against the disputed content) have respected the 3RR rule, which has resulted in discussion, rather than a huge pile of 3RR reports. Unfortunately, the above editor has ignored 3RR, the first time they were warned rather than reported, however despite that warning (or maybe because they "got away with it?) they continued to edit war and to break 3RR. Not only have they broken 3RR (twice), while being warned about it, they have also responded to warnings about edit warring with statements that they will continue to revert, if they don't get their way. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:20, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

The reverts were not removing vandalism, neither were they resolving BLP issues. The editor has broken 3RR in the past and instead of being reported, they were given a polite warning and request to self revert. This did not have the desired effect, and was met with further 3RR violations and statements such as "then yes, they will be reverted." The above report has not resulted in any acceptance that breaking 3RR not acceptable and that they won't do it in the future, it has been met with excuses for why they think it was ok. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Everyone else on this article is working in good faith towards consensus outcomes. In this case, added text didn't appear to match its cited source, so it was removed - and a talk page discussion confirmed that it did, and the disputed edit was reinstated (by me). In the other, I didn't see how added text was relevant, removed it, and when it was reverted, left it to a talk page discussion, which is still ongoing. Spacecowboy420 has a history of behaviour like this - intentionally making ridiculously controversial edits that he knows will be opposed for the purpose of trying to trap users who disagree with him into technically violating 3RR when other users are reworking disputed text to try to find a consensus version. At no point in this lengthy content dispute has Spacecowboy420 ever helpfully contributed to a consensus resolution of an issue, despite repeated provocative edits and many, many reverts, despite B20097 (who ideologically agrees with him) having been extremely helpful in easily resolving issues. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:31, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

This report is about you breaking 3RR, not about my conduct. If you wish to make a report about my contribution towards "consensus resolution of an issue", then I will be happy to give diffs to my talk page comments on the article in question, that make up 17.74% of the total comments by all editors. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:36, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

There is no breach of 3RR. B20097 and I have been working towards consensus on the issues that we disagreed on, and have achieved it. Your contributions are in bad-faith, as ever: you see other editors hashing out agreement over disputed text and throw in a couple of reverts in the hope you can trick an admin into blocking users who disagree with you. You've ignored talk page discussions about all of the edits you've attempted to cite here, and even when you do, I can't think of one occasion you've actually helpfully contributed towards working out a consensus. Again, when there are users who agree with you who have no trouble doing this, it is a bad look. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:41, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

erm... Your last three reverts were not reverting my edits. If your excuse is that I'm baiting you into making reverts, or tricking an admin, then I don't see the logic in those claims, when it wasn't my edits that you reverted Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:46, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Those edits were part of a discussion about that content - as a result of which we now have a consensus outcome. And as usual, you had absolutely no part in that apart from to attempt to inflame the situation - while B20097 and I actually do the work of coming to a consensus from diametrically opposed positions. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:57, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

No, those edits were you edit warring and breaking 3RR. They were you trying to push your point in the talk page, by backing up your comments with reverts, to show that you really wanted to get your own way. And one more time. This report is about you breaking 3RR, it's not about my conduct. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

No, it was a conversation about how to achieve consensus - which got it, when B20097 explained a point that had been missing from his previous rationales and supported his edits, so that I undid the last edit you're quibbling about here (since we had reached consensus!). And yet again, we reach consensus from polar opposite positions, while you try desperately to inflame the issue because that's what you do. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment by uninvolved non-admin: The Drover's Wife self-reverted an hour after the last revert (diff 1): [251] (which appears to be a few minutes after this ANEW report was filed). -- Softlavender (talk) 07:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: I have added some (obviously stale) diffs to show a pattern of behavior.

Note 2: To self revert a couple of minutes after a 3RR report is filed, shows that they knew full well that their edits were wrong, however after doing so, to come to ANI and make excuses, rather than saying "it won't happen again" shows a clear lack of respect for the rules, and a desire not to follow them Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:41, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

My self-revert had nothing to do with Spacecowboy420's antics here. As ever, B20097 and I were working towards consensus, and he answered the questions I had asked in the diffs above about apparent contradictions between his text and his sources in his favour, so of course the edit would stand. We (successfully) worked towards a consensus resolution to the issue as always; Spacecowboy420 tried to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point as always. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:22, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Again, if we're talking about patterns of behaviour, [this is the sort of edit Spacecowboy420 has made when trying these shenanigans in the past, in making flagrantly inappropriate edits in the hope that he can get disagreeing editors blocked. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:24, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Drover's Wife writes above, "As ever, B20097 and I were working towards consensus . . . " For the record I have just added here my note to DV > "Your wording has moved from 'complex tangle' to 'incomprehensible' and now to 'less incomprehensible'. B20097 (talk) 21:56, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

"My self-revert had nothing to do with Spacecowboy420's antics here." AGF is kinda hard with claims like that. I made a report and informed you. Five minutes later you responded here. Five minutes after responding here, you self reverted on the article in question. Sorry, I don't believe you. If you had self-reverted and then said "I was wrong to break 3RR, thanks for pointing it out, I self-reverted and it won't happen again" then I would have withdrawn the report. You didn't. You self-reverted, you continued to claim that you had some form of justification for breaking 3RR and then tried to claim that it was just a coincidence that you self reverted just after you had been reported. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I had been busy actually trying to resolve disputed text and hadn't noticed that anyone could claim I'd violated 3RR, and the edit was promptly undone. Dispute resolved, no 3RR, just a typically disruptive Spacecowboy420 trying to get vengeance on users who dare disagree with him long after everyone else has moved on to more productive things. Your entire edit history on Wikipedia is either actual edit-warring or aggressive, unhelpful talk page participation in edit disputes (anyone passing by is welcome to go look for themselves) and your behaviour here is no different. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:18, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I see. You hadn't noticed that you had been reported for 3RR before making the self-revert.

That does seem a little strange considering that you posted here five minutes before you self reverted Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:55, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I self-reverted within ten minutes of having it brought to my attention, how vile of me. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:25, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

"I had been busy actually trying to resolve disputed text and hadn't noticed that anyone could claim I'd violated 3RR, and the edit was promptly undone." "My self-revert had nothing to do with Spacecowboy420's antics here." "I self-reverted within ten minutes of having it brought to my attention, how vile of me."

Which one? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:43, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Note despite this 3RR report, the editor in question is continuing to make reverts on that article. This goes to show that this is a case of " I don't like that edit, so I'm going to revert it, edit warring rules don't apply to content that I disagree with" Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:29, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

You intentionally left in a claim that I had pointed out on the talk page was completely fabricated. And so, more than 24 hours after this discussion started, I had to revert once to take it out. This is Spacecowboy420 behaviour: he'll add (or in this case, rephrase after it had been pointed out) fake claims about what an official report said, just so he can use it as an excuse to try to get disagreeing editors blocked. This is not the behaviour of a good-faith editor. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I thought that was the word you wanted? You said " it just said that such content may exist." - which is exactly what I changed it to. You need to be a little more clear. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 15:02, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

No, it isn't - your version, as with the previous one, made a claim about the report's findings that was blatantly false. I had specifically brought it up on the talk page several times to try to avoid having to revert anyone, and it wasn't a vague point. Unsurprisingly, you ignored the talk page, waited for me to eventually have to revert the false claim (once), and then immediately ran here to try to use it to convince someone to block me for daring to disagree with you - even though it was more than a day after you started this discussion. Again, this is exactly what Spacecowboy420 does, and it isn't the behaviour of a good-faith editor. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:10, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

General comment on 3RR

The Three Revert Rule is not a weapon - half the time it seems to boomerang on the chucker - but a "bright line" aimed at halting unproductive edit-warring and facilitating discussion aimed towards compromise or consensus. It's three reverts in 24 hours. Not three reverts of the same material, not three reverts of another editor, but three reverts full stop. Once you cross that line, you're fair game for a block.

Both of you are experienced editors and must know this. Frankly, I'm disappointed. --Pete (talk) 22:33, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Page protected – 5 days. Please use the talk page to search for agreement. EdJohnston (talk) 17:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Geohum reported by User:Thomas.W (Result: Blocked)

Page

Germans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Geohum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 11:59, 22 September 2016 (UTC) ""
2. 20:59, 21 September 2016 (UTC) ""
3. 20:22, 21 September 2016 (UTC) ""
4. 20:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC) ""
5. 12:07, 21 September 2016 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Germans."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Edit-warrior repeatedly adding a gallery of images (contrary to MOS etc) to the article, in spite of being reverted by several different editors, and getting a 3RR-warning. They have made five reverts within 24h plus a sixth revert about 2h before that, and apparently intend to continue adding it... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 12:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I can add that a look at their contributions shows that it's not a new user, in spite of only having made a bit over 30 edits, a quick look at the page history of Germans also shows that it's most probably the same person as User:Danx2k and probably others before that (compare the contributions of the two accounts...), so they ought to know the rules here. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 13:10, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Blocked – 1 week. Geohum has also been making large changes (with no discussion) at pages like Immigration to the United States. The same person may have been edit warring at Germans as User:Danx2k back in 2015. EdJohnston (talk) 18:04, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

User:125.99.253.42 reported by User:Altenmann (Result: Malformed)

Page: Sharma (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 125.99.253.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs..--Bbb23 (talk) 20:52, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

User:95.133.211.190 reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: One page protected)

User being reported: 95.133.211.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Page: European Open (snooker) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Previous version reverted to: [252]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [253]
2. [254]

Page: European Snooker Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Previous version reverted to: [255]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [256]
2. [257]

Page: Template:Malta Cup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Previous version reverted to: [258]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [259]
2. [260]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [261]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [262]

Comments:

The IP has not violated 3RR but the reverts are extremely disruptive. They are the consequence of a bold edit to split content out of European Open (snooker). I pointed out that WP:PROSPLIT permits editors to revert bold splits that do not have a consensus but he just deleted my message. There seems to be a pattern emerging on his talk page: if somebody warns the editor on their talk page he simply deletes their comments without responding to them. The editor subsequently restored his split despite being aware of PROSPLIT and the RFC on the talk page to establish the legitimacy of the split. I am requesting two things from the admin reviewing this case: i) I would like permission to restore the articles to their pre-split version, at least until the RFC is concluded, which I believe is in accordance with WP:PROSPLIT; ii) I would also like to have the IP instructed to cease splitting the article until the RFC is concluded. Betty Logan (talk) 19:47, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

• User BettyLogan restored the information about the European Masters in the European Open (snooker) article although European Masters (snooker) was kept per this finished AfD. They are the different tournaments and user BettyLogan makes his own false original research. Another users also reverted his wrongdoing [263]. 95.133.211.190 (talk) 20:08, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

First of all, the AfD for the other article was closed as "no consensus" and a second discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Article_splitting_protocol advised starting an RFC to determine whether the articles should stay split or remerged. Second of all, PROSPLIT says "contested bold split may be reverted, however it is not always appropriate to redirect the new article to the old as the new article may stand on its own even if the main article that it came from is not split." Surviving the AfD means the article is retained for now, but it does not give you a mandate you removed the content from the original article. Betty Logan (talk) 20:14, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

• They are absolutely different tournaments. No any sources which say they are the same! Source please! Note, 1) the URL analysis is the original research. 2) Your link says: Romania will host a professional snooker tournament for the first time when the new world ranking event takes place in Cluj. 3) Another link [264] says: Qualifiers Introduced for Inaugural European Championship. 95.133.211.190 (talk) 20:16, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

We are not interested in your view on the article here. Those are documented at the RFC, where incidentally two editors disagree with you. The purpose of this discussion is to discuss your combative behavior and disregard of the article splitting procedures. Betty Logan (talk) 20:20, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

"We are not interested". So, Betty Logan is not a lone user. I'm not interested in your distruptive behavior in snooker articles. Discuss the articles, not the users. You say Malta Cup/European Open is back after 8 years (!) and there was no any announcements. Do you have the sources? No, any sources, only false URL research! 95.133.211.190 (talk) 20:35, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

No, I'm not a lone user, I am part of a group of people involved in a collaborative project to develop coverage of snooker on Wikipedia. Disruption is caused when editors circumvent procedures that are meant to be followed to reconcile differences of opinion, as in cases such as this. My reasons for opposing the split are at the RFC where they belong, and the point of this noticeboard is to discuss editors and their conduct I'm afriad, not to discuss content. Betty Logan (talk) 20:49, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Pour water. Again. Do you have the sources? Which said "Malta Cup/European Open is back after 8 years". No, you have not? Try to apologise then. 95.133.211.190 (talk) 21:03, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Comment: @Betty Logan: From what I can see you're both at two reverts, so how come you claim that the IP is edit-warring but you're not? Edit-warring is edit-warring whether you feel you're right or not. Another editor has also reverted you, both on 7 September and today, so it's not just the IP who disagrees with you. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I believe my reverts are consistent with WP:PROSPLIT which states that bold splits may be reverted. There was no discussion prior to splitting the article and no consensus to split the article. The guidelines clearly states that contested splits can be reverted. I also feel that I have done more to resolve the issue than the other editor. Whereas all the other editor has done is revert, my actions to resolve the dispute go beyond reverting: I also started an RFC at Talk:European_Open_(snooker) to gauge the legitimacy of the split. So yes, if you are taking a harsh view of my actions you can say I am guilty of edit-warring too, but I believe my reverts where permitted within the framework of article splitting disputes and I think I have have been more proactive in attempting to resolve the dispute through discussion. Betty Logan (talk) 21:28, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

@Betty Logan: WP:PROSPLIT is neither a policy nor a guideline and thus doesn't trump WP:Edit warring, which is a policy. Per which only a few specific types of reverts are exempt from the normal 3RR-rules (see WP:3RRNO), and enforcing consensus is not among them. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:50, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Since neither the IP nor I have breached 3RR neither of us have any need to invoke a 3RR exemption. Not all reverting is "edit-warring", and outside of 3RR violations it is up to administrators to determine which actions constitute edit warring with respect to each editor's actions, given the nature of those reverts, what else they have done to resolve the dispute, and their overall behavior. WP:CONSENSUS is a policy and Wikipedia:Splitting stipulates that it represents the community's consensus on Wikipedia practices, and under that description it states that editors may revert contested edits. That is entirely in line with other types of revert that are permitted and not construed as edit-warring, such as reverting vandalism or reverting contested article moves. Also, actions are not taken in isolation: my reverts do not represent the sum total of my effort to resolve dispute. Also, I am not requesting that the IP is "taken out", I am requesting that he respects the WP:STATUSQUO until the RFC settles the question, which I am sure we all agree would be the preferable approach to settling the dispute. Betty Logan (talk) 22:22, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Page protected – European Open (snooker) is protected five days. Please use the RfC on this article's talk page to search for consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 18:24, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

User:24.47.198.191 reported by User:Agtx (Result:2 week block evasion block )

Page: List of Donald Trump presidential campaign endorsements, 2016
User being reported: User:24.47.198.191

Previous version reverted to: [265]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [266]
2. [267]
3. [268]
4. [269]
5. [270]
6. [271] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agtx (talk • contribs) 20:31, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [272]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [273] (I didn't add to this discussion since there was no response before). I'll also add that I had a bad revert in there (misclick), that I was about to undo, but the user reverted me before I had a chance.

Comments:

agtx 19:38, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks by User:Favonian for block evasion. Doug Weller talk 20:57, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

User:59.182.186.110 reported by User:Gluons12 (Result: )

Page

2007 Samjhauta Express bombings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

59.182.186.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:36, 24 September 2016 (UTC) "The two citations only tell us that there is an ALLEGATION. That cannot be used to make a bland statement of fact"
2. 15:25, 24 September 2016 (UTC) "Please try and understand the difference between an ALLEGATION and a CONFIRMED FACT. What you are writing is a WP:BPL violation"
3. 14:56, 24 September 2016 (UTC) "Sockpuppet alert"
4. 16:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC) "Nice. So now you logout of your account and make the same edit as an IP. Shame on you."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:43, 24 September 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on 2007 Samjhauta Express bombings. (TW)"

Comments:

An attempt to contact warring users on the talk page was made at Talk:2007_Samjhauta_Express_bombings#IP.27s_removal but the user failed to respond. I attempted to revert the edits he made and he reverted back. In order to avoid edit warring myself, I decided to file here. Gluons12 ^talk 15:52, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about this discussion. Also for helpfully providing links to the changes made by me, and my stated reasons for making those changes. I think my explanations are self-explanatory. User Mar4d wants to name an Indian organization as the "perpetrator" of the 2007 Samjhauta Express bombings on the strength of two citations, but neither of the citations bear out his claim. Both of those citations only report the allegation that the Indian organization is responsible. Until that is proven, Wikipedia should not state as a FACT that the mass murder was perpetrated by that Indian organization. You can only say that there is such an allegation, and indeed, the entirely of the page says nothing else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.182.186.110 (talk) 16:00, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

• The IP is causing disruption across a number of pages. Multiple editors, including admins have warned him/her about his disruption, but he continues to disrupt. Please Block ASAP. TouristerMan (talk) 03:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Marcus.savage.0 reported by User:Agtx (Result: Declined)

Page: List of Donald Trump presidential campaign endorsements, 2016 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Marcus.savage.0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [274]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [275]
2. [276]
3. [277]
4. [278]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [279]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [280]

Comments:
I tried to step in here, but I'm stepping out. All folks want to do is edit war, apparently. It does appear as though this user may have gotten the 3RR notice at the same time as the last reversion, rather than before as I had thought. Nevertheless, there are still far too many reverts here. agtx 19:53, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

• Declined Marcus was reverting a blocked user (who was evading the block using an IP address). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:43, 25 September 2016 (UTC)